We are using the TranReference field to store our Lot Numbers for certain Parts in Epicor. We have also been implementing EKW and printing our own labels as they are being stored. We were able to get to the TranReference field and get it on our labels by adding a MtlTags2RcvDtl relationship:
However, after time has gone by, we have started to run into duplicate labels being printed. We found that this is because the MtlTags table doesn’t store PackSlip or PackLine in order for us to get the relationship down to that level, so if we have any other Receipts that have a line with the same Part, Lot, and Bin, we get duplicate records and labels.
We were thinking of two things, but we are unsure how to accomplish either. Either:
Inject RcvDtl.Packslip and RcvDtl.Packline into MtlTags, then edit the MtlTags2RcvDtl Relationship to get it down to the Packslip and Packline, hopefully removing the duplicate records.
Inject just RcvDtl.TranReference into MtlTags, negating the need for the Relationship that makes the field available and gives us duplicates.
We feel like the second option is better, but either might work. Anybody know of how we might go about accomplishing this?
I have created a ticket with Encompass, the consultant firm we have used in the past (highly recommended by the way!), but if we can do it ourselves (with the help of the community), that would be awesome.
Based on YOU being the last poster in that previous thread a year ago… I’m assuming you’re still looking for a way to do this?
MtlTags is a pain to work with! But if you want to try the CallContextBpmData route I walked through an exercise to pass CCBpmD to MtlTags in the below thread. You’ll have to carve out the portions for your use case (the post was trying to push LaborDtl data from MES to the tags). But if its helpful…
Thanks David. Your explanation is very thorough and makes sense. I will play around with it soon and try to get it working. However, I’m curious if these customizations would carry over to the EKW handhelds since they aren’t using Kinetic with Layers. Would you agree?