Vantage 8.03.xx: Dashboard Quandary

Yahoo Archive
1
This is the path that I have been looking to go. This is very similar to the UserCodes in Epicor 9.

Thank you

Dan Godfrey
(805) 389-1935 x 251


________________________________
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of snielsen28
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:04 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Vantage 8.03.xx: Dashboard Quandary



I didn't understand (or trust) some of the constant fields available in Vantage so I used some UD fields in the company file. I used Number01 for the current year and Number02 for the prior year. At the start of a new year I just changed those two fields. It worked just fine and eliminated "hardcoding" the year I needed to check in BAQs. It's much easier than keeping a list of BAQs that need to be changed annually!

Sue

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>, "dgodfrey_amc" <dgodfrey@...> wrote:
>
> My problem:
>
> I have a dashboard with two BAQs in it. I want one filter to effect both dashboards utilizing a FiscalYear field. The problem is that I am required to have the dashboards in a summary mode. This summary issue seems to be effecting the record selected; no record is currently selected in a collapsed summary view.
>
> One thought that I had was to fill a UDXX table with some years, Years using Epicor + some number of future years. This way I can make a BAQ on that UD table and bring it in for the filter.
>
> Is there another way around this?
>



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The data attached/enclosed may contain information (including technology and technical data) which is subject to the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or Export Administration Regulations (EAR). This information may not be exported, released, or disclosed to foreign persons either inside or outside the United States without first obtaining the proper U.S. export license or written authorization. In addition, the information and articles described herein are either patented or proprietary, and the copying or reproduction thereof is prohibited without ADVANCED Motion Controls prior written consent. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error), please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. Thank you for your compliance.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2
My problem:

I have a dashboard with two BAQs in it. I want one filter to effect both dashboards utilizing a FiscalYear field. The problem is that I am required to have the dashboards in a summary mode. This summary issue seems to be effecting the record selected; no record is currently selected in a collapsed summary view.

One thought that I had was to fill a UDXX table with some years, Years using Epicor + some number of future years. This way I can make a BAQ on that UD table and bring it in for the filter.

Is there another way around this?
3
I didn't understand (or trust) some of the constant fields available in Vantage so I used some UD fields in the company file. I used Number01 for the current year and Number02 for the prior year. At the start of a new year I just changed those two fields. It worked just fine and eliminated "hardcoding" the year I needed to check in BAQs. It's much easier than keeping a list of BAQs that need to be changed annually!

Sue

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "dgodfrey_amc" <dgodfrey@...> wrote:
>
> My problem:
>
> I have a dashboard with two BAQs in it. I want one filter to effect both dashboards utilizing a FiscalYear field. The problem is that I am required to have the dashboards in a summary mode. This summary issue seems to be effecting the record selected; no record is currently selected in a collapsed summary view.
>
> One thought that I had was to fill a UDXX table with some years, Years using Epicor + some number of future years. This way I can make a BAQ on that UD table and bring it in for the filter.
>
> Is there another way around this?
>