In Part Maintenance, we quite often use the functionality of being able to enter in a Customer Part Number and it will automatically resolve to and open Our Part Maintenance record in Epicor instead of prompting us to create a new part number every time.
So, for example, if we typed Customer Part Number: CustPart01 into the Part field of Part Maintenance, Part Maintenance would automatically pull Our Part Maintenance Record of F000RAC01 associated with that Customer Part Number in the Customer Part Cross Reference table.
Since we migrated from Epicor 9 to Epicor 10 it seems that only a handful of Customer Part Numbers are working and bringing through Our Part Maintenance record automatically even though these Customer Parts are in the Customer Part Cross Reference table.
Are we missing any sort of settings on these Parts or Customer Parts to setup this automatic connection between the two parts in Part Maintenance?
Thank you for any help you can provide!!!
I saw the same thing with some parts when moving from 9 to 10 as well.
I believe it is a known data conversion issue and I’m pretty sure Epicor Support provided a data fix. For awhile after upgrading I found odd data issues related to the case of letters and such.
Thank you @Rick_Bird! I will report this to Epicor as well and hopefully get a data fix for it like you did. I had a bad feeling it might be a data issue from our migration. I kept trying to find a pattern but was never able to…even if I delete the record and re-create it in the Part Cross-Reference table I still can’t get it to work. A little scary.
Thanks so much for the quick and helpful feedback! I appreciate it!
And request a Data Health Check from Epicor. It should help identify and fix some of the known issues after conversion. We just ran one on 10.2.100 and it found some cruft from 10.0.700 that we still had.
That is a GREAT idea!!!
I wrote myself a note to request that in the near future but the future is NOW! So I will request a Data Health Check and see if it helps us out. Thank you SO MUCH @Mark_Wonsil!
I requested the Data Health Check through EpicCare. Thank you!
I’ve contacted support about this and the official response was it ever working was a bug and they don’t truly support it because it’s a one to many relationship. I built a series of customization to fill the gap. Attached is a solution for those.
Provided without any warranty, guarantee of function or free from malicious code. safe harbor! safe harbor!
XPartSTuf_Customer Solution_3.1.500.0.cab (116.1 KB)
That is REALLY AWESOME! Thank you for sharing this Solution file! This will be a great improvement even over the old functionality. Thanks again!
Moving to Expert’s corner for posterity , since this is a really swanky solution… Don’t go getting a big head @jgiese.wci LoL
Also you forgot the disclaimer man… get ready to support this for the next 100 years!
picture of @jgiese.wci’s head at insights this year
LMBO! Somebody needs to deflate that thing otherwise there will be standing room only in all the classes!
I thought I would piggy back on this issue with a further enhancement.
I have added a Pre-Processing Methods Directive to Part.GetPartXRefInfo.
I call it Job Number Lookup Feature:
In my case my production jobs have a “V” prefix, my manufactured parts don’t.
So the Methods Condition is "the PartNum argument begins with “V”.
I synchronously run ABL code.
Define Var sScCheck as Character no-Undo.
MyCheck = ‘Not Sure’.
find JobHead Where JobHead.Company = Cur-Comp
and JobHead.JobNum = PartNum no-lock.
if JobHead.Jobnum = PartNum then MyCheck = ‘JobNumber’.
IF MyCheck = ‘JobNumber’ then PartNum = JobHead.PartNum.
OK so now what.
You can enter a production job number in the part number field and it will look up the manufactured part for you.
Could you reshare this in separate files? I mean BPM, BAQ or what ever is inside. Solution workbench does not accept this solution file
Solution file wouldn’t help you either still version mismatch with what I’m on. Open the CAB file up and see what is all in there. You might be able to rebuild what I did from that.