Good news. I’m [im]patiently waiting.
2 Likes
Anyone have issues with Multi-Company Continuous Processing in 10.2.600? Our has a Next Run but it never runs. @JeffLeBert did Continuous Processing break?
It’s just stuck in Next Run, manually kick off works fine.
Sorry, I don’t know of any changes we made in that area that would cause an issue like that.
1 Like
I figured I ask, since I know you guys made some changes to TA. No errors in any logs, it even updates the Next Run On… but it never runs, logging TA, App Server, IIS, Windows (all looks good)… I figured since not many folks are running Continuous perhaps they didn’t see the issue… I hope its not a issue… because Continuous is currently the only way we can run… (Data issues).
Verbose SeriLog
Somehow the query must be wrong… its skipping my task… never finding it.
1 Like
I figured it out… So a Restart no longer will run the Startup tasks, maybe it never did before either. If you have multiple TA all must be stopped and then you start atleast 1 and Startup tasks are ran. I did stop 1 of them, but it didnt kick off until all of the TAs were stopped.
If you have Startup’s you must do a Stop of all TAs.
If you have a single TA then a Stop/Start worked while a Restart didn’t trigger them. FYI
That is weird. I had heard something like this, but it was very rare and we have never been able to reproduce. A number of these “weird” issues turn out to be operator failure. Now that you’ve figured out some steps to reproduce we may be able to track it down.
1 Like
I’ll keep an eye, see if its as simple as:
Reproduction Steps:
- Schedule Something to a Startup Schedule
- Restart Task Agent
- See Nothing Run
Works:
- Schedule Something to a Startup Schedule
- Stop Task Agent
- Start Task Agent
- Epicor Magic
But perhaps this is favorable behavior? A Single TA being restarted behaves differently than Start/Stop. Perhaps by Design? Perhaps always was that way… I just never noticed.
2 Likes
Interestingly enough, I don’t see any reference to ERPS-145562 in the release notes of 10.2.600.13 which is supposed to be the fix for the external BAQs. Shouldn’t a code fix like this be noted in the release notes?
1 Like
I didn’t see it noted in the Change List but comparing .10 to .13 I do see the fix applied. @kfierce @JeffLeBert
1 Like
Thanks @hkeric.wci for checking. Do you know who would be the best person at Epicor to have a discussion on why changes like this and others are not documented in the release notes.
It sure makes it more of a guessing game when we apply and test a patch when we don’t know what what changed.
Just checking… have you actually confirmed the fix works in your environment? I’ve been keeping an eye on this thread as it would be a major show-stopper for us if I pushed to a version with the problem.
The code dun lie. It’s fixed.
I too have been following this thread for the same reason. I’ve only done a cursory test, but it did seem to fix the issue for us.
Yes, just tested. Works now in 10.2.600.13
1 Like
How does that saying go? “Never Ascribe to Malice what can be explained by ignorance.” This is an ‘odd duck’ issue for Epicor Erp. I can see that on Sept 11th Jeff dutifully flagged it to be included in release notes. I look through the history of the issue and I do not see any other references to the include in release notes flag. But at this time the include in release notes flag on the issue is indeed ‘false’.
Given that it is not recored as an individual activity in the history I am guessing some automated process or a jira update query was run that accidentally included it and as a result it never showed up for the documentation team when they were building the release notes. I do not believe this happens often but human error does indeed happen.
1 Like
Ahh, “Hanlon’s Razor”… words to live by.
1 Like
I’ve been watching this post, not being able to use external BAQs would bring our production and shipping to its knees. Little did I know Epicor was only aware of the issue in 10.2.600… we are on 10.2.500. I guess they don’t check automatically if they can recreate the same bug on the corresponding 10.2.500 version, so we are starting from scratch.
Just a heads up in case anyone else thinks they were already retrofitting this to .500.
Jenn
Yes I have tested the external BAQs is working in 10.2.600.13.
1 Like