Receipt Entry>Job Subcontract Warehouse not Populating Correctly

I am having trouble getting the Warehouse field to populate with the default warehouse setup in Company Configuration when the Inspection Required box is flagged. According to the Epicor Help information if you are receiving the parts to Inspection, the default Inspection Warehouse from your company configuration is the default for this field.

When we enter the line details into Receipt Entry the warehouse and bin that populate come from Part Maintenance. This was not an issue until about a week ago when we removed the Advanced Material Management module. A couple of years ago we purchased the AMM module and I know that we had to make some adjustments to our system to account for that, but we decided to remove it. I cannot remember what adjusts we made.

Before removing the AMM module I had the system running as follows…

  • Method Directive at PO.ChangeDetailJobSeq> post processing to set the Inspection Required field to True.
  • Method Directive at Receipt.GetDtlPOLineInfo > post processing to change the warehouse and bin to the Inspection warehouse and bin if Inspection Required is set as True (this doesn’t seem to be working anymore).

Any help would be greatly appreciated, since this is causing some issues at the receipt process. We have had to make a lot of adjustments.

Thanks,
Melissa

Melissa,
From what you have provided, I can’t tell exactly what would be wrong but you are correct that receipts enabled for inspection, their warehouse should default to the inspection warehouse setup in the Plant config. I am curious why you have those two BPM’s to begin with since if the PO’s inspection required is enabled then the receipt line should automatically inherit that setting, and if your SubContract supplier is enabled for inspection your Job Oper and then the PO Line should also automatically enable Inspection required…unless this is to work around a bug, what version are you running?

Here are some thoughts you can try though:

  1. After removing AMM did you restart your app server and recompile your BPM’s? Might need to, not to sure on that one.

  2. To confirm that your BPM for default warehouse is firing you can drop in a Info message that just says that it’s setting the warehouse & bin.

  3. The primary way that AMM affects Receipt entry and Inspection processing is that it creates Mtl Queues to move the received inventory to the primary bin or inspection whse/bin, without AMM, this logic probably should not fire and instead the receipt should go into the Receiving Warehouse/Bin or the Inspection warehouse/bin specified in the Plant Config.

  4. Perhaps removing AMM does not reset some values to what they should be without AMM, so you might want to reset some of these values, specifically the Company Inspection whse & bin. What I mean is to go into Company Config, change the Inspection warehouse & bin to something else random & save and then set it back to the warehouse & bin you want and save again. Some changes trigger other data updates and by just removing AMM may not have triggered these updates, but by changing the values to something else and back again would force that trigger and perhaps correct any incorrect data.

These are things I would look into and try, but you should probably first replicate the issue in your Test environment and then check these items and troubleshoot there, would hate for you to accidentally break it worse.
What is Epicor Support telling you?

-Rick
www.getaligned.solutions

Rick,

Thanks for the response. We are running 9.05.702a, and the reason that we have the BPM’s setup is due to the fact that not everything that comes from the Suppliers are inspected, so someone thought that it would be easier to create a BPM to flag it based on some conditions. I have already tried a lot of the items that you suggested. One thing that I did think about was rewriting the code in the BPM, I am working on that now and testing it out.

I have not heard from Epicor Support yet, this forum seems to produce faster results.

Thanks,
Melissa