For those on 2024.1.10 (Cloud)
When attempting to add a job misc charge to an AP invoice:
Support is aware of the issue and it will be rolled up into .12, and they are providing a hotfix for now (but it did not work for us). Confirmed on their standard OOB learning environment as well.
Does it work in Classic? Might be a work around until it gets fixed at least.
Adding a Sub Contract OP to the job on the fly in the PO is also broken in Kinetic it worked perfectly fine in one of the previous versions our workaround is to use classic 
I didn’t know you could do that, to begin with.
You could make a subcontract PO for a job where there wasn’t a subcontact op, and Kinetic would add it on to the job for you?
What were the steps to do this?
This sounds similar to being able to requisition a material for a job, and if the PO was processed, it would add the material to the job automatically. I just didn’t realize that would work with subcontact. Do you have to do it via requisition as well?
We don’t use requisition here so not sure.
As for steps add a subcontract line to a PO enter your job number right click on the OP field and select open with ADD, a pop-out screen will appear where you can add the opp detail QTY per parent cost etc it will then add it to the Job and your PO.
It was super handy we used it primarily to process credit card expenses to the Job for both material and subcontract. It was working in Kinetic web however broke in one of the recent updates so now we are back to using classic.
Hey Friends!
We cannot pay AP Invoices via the Classic or Kinetic (client/browser). Please advise, we are dependent on this functionally, and it has stopped business.
What’s going on? The base education 2024.1.10 environment has the same web/kinetic error.
Epicor Cases:
CS0004542998
CS0004523948
Proposed Fix (Which we cannot look up):
PRB0287447
Please help, being a cloud customer is severely limiting, and support and (facilitating communication) between functional and cloud server ops folks has been dreadful. It seems they are not communicating with one another.
I’m going to start implementing Playwright QA on our end…
I think we need to put some borders on this problem and who it affects. This is NOT something that everyone will experience. This is a very specific case of scenarios that added into a challenge.
So… trying not to panic the entire Epicor community here… this particular issue is not something that most of you will experience. It is probably as close to a one-off issue as we can have (unless someone else has the same two fixes installed).
Devil’s advocate…if you’re on Epicor cloud, shouldn’t every possible combination of hotfix/CSF be tested before deployment? I thought that was one of the driving forces behind an Epicor cloud implementation…to provide a standardized environment.
We’re an on-prem US-only 3P-hosted…full disclosure. But could something like this impact any future decision for us to migrate to the cloud from on-prem? Doubtful…but it’s good to know what others experience…one of the reasons I come here.
Feel free to shoot me down if I’m out of line. Certainly not intended to sling mud.
No.
Tim, this issue impacts a base install of 2024.1.10 , on-prem in the training database. Does the education database have CSF?
My mistake then…
Since I’m not the type to drag a thread into a cloud discussion, there are several threads about the costs/benefits of going cloud and staying on-prem. Every company is different, so I wouldn’t say that standardization is goal, let alone a possibility. The combinatorics are so high, there is no way every situation could be tested. IMHO, we should have a robust testing framework. But I’m not the type of person that goes off-topic into things like DevOps.
Fair enough…not trying to start World War 2024.1 or 2024.2 
All, please don’t saturate a thread with other questions. Where the admins at? This is a serious issue and should be targeted on .13 (per support) on the 18th
Not true @timshuwy - I’ve got multiple cases for multiple UK customers also affected by this. CS0004429437 / CS0004494132. Interesting that it’s linked to a different PRB - PRB0282372.
So perhaps it affects anybody who has a CSF pack applied, but my customers don’t meet either of those 2 scenarios about hotfix and Malaysia. The affected customers are Cloud customers.
The base layer is empty:
I raised this with support on June 26th…! UK customers were much earlier to the 2024.1 party.
QA wise the fact that the layer is completely empty suggests that in fact DOES NOT get tested.
@jgehling does classic work? Or is that broken too
We’ve been doing testing in 2024.1 and we have several CSF but we haven’t tested Kinetic Web for this function. I’m having them double check classic but I suspect this is only a Kinetic Web Issue correct?
The original issue shows something about a view error, he never gave any details on what happens in classic. I’m a bit confused.
@jgehling please explain more, maybe we can find you a workaround if you are desperate.
@jgehling , did you try reversing it and add the misc. charge to the Job and then try to bring it into AP? Only thing I can think of.
The workaround is to go to the job, add a material and tick it as “Misc Charge”. Then on AP Invoice you can point at that newly created material. You can use either Kinetic or Classic job entry. The classic version of AP Invoice entry seems fine too.
It’s massively inconvenient for my affected customers because we’ve taken them live as Kinetic only. To say “oh don’t worry it works in this thing called classic that’s being turned off soon” doesn’t really offer any condolence.
When I looked at an on-prem system the layout.json file is completely empty. Zero QA peformed on this for that to have been deployed to the masses in my view - and the time to fix has been far too long, especially considering if what I’ve seen is correct all they needed to do was restore that file from the previous build.
if someone can get the json from getapp from the previous version I can make a quick and dirty fix.
