PartTran to TranGLC Duplicates - Rule UID


Hi all,

We recently implemented Epicor 10.2.600.6. There is a BAQ I created before the update that linked the PartTran table to the TranGLC table. TranGLC table criteria was RelatedToFile = PartTran and the join between PartTran and TranGLC was SysDate = Key1, SysTime = Key2, TranNum = Key3 respectively.

I’m now getting duplicate rows when running the BAQ that I didn’t get before the update. When looking into this I noticed column name ‘Rule UID’ from the TranGLC table was sometimes giving two results for what is one transaction in the Part Transaction History. The only description stated for Rule UID is “Technical identifier”.


I’m just curious if anyone else has come across this and if so what they did to resolve it? I know I could make rows distinct but that’s not efficient, there’s a risk of accidently merging two transactions that should be separated, and ultimately I’d like to know what this Rule UID is and why I’m getting two results from it.


Check GLAcctContext andf UserCanModify field in TranGlc.

Check the Data Dictionary for what that field is.

And while it’s probably not what you’re seeing, but when we upgraded from 10.1.400 to 10.2.300, a few “duplicate” TranGLC entries appeared for an old invoice and credit memo

Arul, I now see the two rules in my screenshot have Variance (Ext Cost) and Variance (Material Burden) as fields for the GLAcctContext column. This makes sense because the BAQ was for purchase price variance and I also noticed that the PPV calculation tied to our PPV account if I removed the duplicates. Before the update we had to make a manual journal entry to reclass the material burden variance to our freight account.

After I made the criteria GLAcctContext = Variance (Ext Cost) the BAQ now works as intended. It appears that this duplication issue is directly related to purchase price variance being split up in the new version which is good since I use the PartTran to TranGLC link in quite a bit of my queries. But I’ll still be more cognizant about this potentially happening in my other queries going forward.

Thanks for the help guys.

1 Like