Unable to Dispatch Requisition using ReqEntry Adapter

For some reason, I’ll join the chorus - has anyone got a successful dispatch working in practice?

To be specific, when I update the fields that others have (and that I saw in the trace), it does update, but it does not log the changes.

Also, the “To do list” is wrong. It’s still showing a previous action:

image

Compared to the Req itself:
image

So clearly I have not fully dispatched it.

I am baffled that there is not a method for dispatching in the Req BO.

EDIT: If it helps, let me rephrase this:

  • Is “Dispatching” nothing more than updating some fields in ReqHead?
  • Does it also involve writing to the log (even though that does not show in the trace)?
  • Are there other things involved that I can’t see?

TWO YEARS LATER…

Finally coming back to this. I know several of you figured this out, in other posts here also.

I understand that I need to add the extra row before update. But the closest I get is an unexpected error, which in the Event Viewer just says Object reference not set to an instance of an object.

The thing that is bugging me (pun?) is that the json diff turns up all the fields you all mention but also this one in blue on the second row (the RowMod = U row). And to be VERY specific, you all include the one that ends in Id, but the added field ends in ID (capital D). And it does not want me to add an extra field on only one row!

Or maybe it’s something else. Ugh, so close.

Since I already reopened the thread, I figure I might as well respond to this now also. It’s the same general idea, but change the first 3 as I commented below

newRow["NextDispatcherID"] = "RequestorIDHere"; //same as ReqUserId (in this case)
newRow["NextActionID"] = " ";                   //space
newRow["ReplyOption"] = "R";                    // R for reject
newRow["ReqUserId"] = "RequestorIDHere";
newRow["RowMod"] = "U";

Implied, of course, is that I also was successful, due only to that original code from @Dragos. Turns out my widget plan failed because of a bug with UD fields. See this post:

Oh - and that extra ReqUserID field? (The one in blue in the previous post.) Totally irrelevant and a red herring. Ignore that.