Jim,
We had the same problem some years ago.
Basically we had a number of POHeaders with a zero VendorNum.
It ended up with Epicor here in UK writing a Progress routine to allow us to
delete the POs on an order by order basis.
The good news is that whatever caused the problem appears to have been
resolved, 'cos it's not happened since.
Regards,
Richard
Richard Bailey
Dudley Industries
Mailto: rbailey@...
Tel: +44(0)1253 738311
Mob: +44(0)7836 550360
-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
jpleau2
Sent: 29 January 2008 13:57
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Vantage 6.1 - Error "Vendor record not on
file.(138)"
We'd be interested in a solution as well. Open PO Report worked well
in 5.2.
Jill
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Feetterer" <jfeetterer@...>
wrote:
We had the same problem some years ago.
Basically we had a number of POHeaders with a zero VendorNum.
It ended up with Epicor here in UK writing a Progress routine to allow us to
delete the POs on an order by order basis.
The good news is that whatever caused the problem appears to have been
resolved, 'cos it's not happened since.
Regards,
Richard
Richard Bailey
Dudley Industries
Mailto: rbailey@...
Tel: +44(0)1253 738311
Mob: +44(0)7836 550360
-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
jpleau2
Sent: 29 January 2008 13:57
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Vantage 6.1 - Error "Vendor record not on
file.(138)"
We'd be interested in a solution as well. Open PO Report worked well
in 5.2.
Jill
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Feetterer" <jfeetterer@...>
wrote:
>for
> I receive this error every time I print the standard OPEN-PO-REPORT
> specific vendors. They are in the system and if I keep hitting OK, Ihave
> eventually get the report but my fingers are getting tired. Anybody
> a suggestion on how to fix this error?[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>