Small and medium business | Business Central, N...

Planning worksheet creates multiple Assembly orders for the same demand and fails with error

(3) Share

Report

Posted on by Valerii Khrapal

Hello,

I believe I’ve found an issue with Planning Worksheet, Assemble-to-Order, and automatic reservations in Business Central 28.3.

Version: BC 28.3 (Platform 28.0.52916.0, Application 28.3.52162.53160)

Item Setup

Item: 000.JDP-26151-000
Serial Number Tracking enabled
Reserve = Always
Reordering Policy = Order
Tested with Order Tracking Policy = None and Tracking & Action Msg. (same result)

Scenario

A serialized item (Serial No. 358250463) exists in inventory at location NAV-FINISH.

Create a Sales Order for Qty. 1.
BC automatically reserves the inventory item.
Set Quantity to Assemble = 1.
BC creates an Assembly Order and converts the reservation to an Order-to-Order reservation between the Sales Order and Assembly Order.
Run Planning Worksheet → Calculate Regenerative Plan.

Expected Result

Planning should recognize that demand is already covered by the Assemble-to-Order Assembly Order and should not create additional supply.

Actual Result

Each Planning Worksheet run creates another Assembly Order for the same Sales Order demand.

Symptoms include:

Multiple Order-to-Order reservation entries for the same Sales Order line.
All reservations reference the same serial number (358250463).
Order Tracking shows Quantity = 1 and Untracked Quantity = -2.
Multiple Assembly Orders appear as supply for a single demand.
Reservations can no longer be cancelled.
Eventually Planning Worksheet fails with:
"Order Priority must have a value in Inventory Profile."

Question

Has anyone seen similar behavior in BC 28.x? Is this a known issue, or is there a recommended configuration/workaround to prevent Planning Worksheet from creating multiple Assembly Orders and duplicate Order-to-Order reservations for the same Sales Order line?

Thank you.

IMG_9647.jpeg

IMG_9648.jpeg

Your file is currently under scan for potential threats. Please wait while we review it for any viruses or malicious content.

Categories:

Dynamics 365 Business Central

I have the same question (0)

All responses (5)

Answers (0)

Sort by

Suggested answer

Teagen Boll 3,557 Super User 2026 Season 2 on at

Like (2)

Report
Copy link

Link copied!

I can't replicate it in my testing environment but this does look like a bug to me. I'd report it to microsoft or have your partner submit a ticket on your behalf so they can troubleshoot. If you can replicate in a sandbox copy of your environment that will help them dig into the problem.

Best,
Teagen Boll
LinkedIn
Blog posts

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Suggested answer

Grigorios Mavrogeorgis 3,045 Super User 2026 Season 2 on at

Like (1)

Report
Copy link

Link copied!

Hi, from what you describe this isn't something you tune away with setup, it reads like a real defect and I'd raise it with Microsoft support using exactly this repro, the platform and application builds you listed are half the ticket already.
Reordering Policy = Order on an assemble-to-order item is a normal configuration, and the assembly supply is driven from the sales line, so planning generating a second assembly order for demand that's already covered is not what should happen. That is the part that belongs in the ticket, it's not a configuration question.
Until you hear back, filtering that item out of the regenerative run is containment so the mess stops growing, not an explanation. The Inventory Profile error I read the same way, a symptom of planning choking on reservation entries that are already inconsistent, so clean those on a test copy or every run just adds more noise.
Does it reproduce on a fresh sandbox with only that item and no extensions.
Glad to help - follow up if anything is unclear.
► If this solved it, marking it verified helps others too.
Regards,
Grigorios Mavrogeorgis
Business Central Consultant & AL Developer
Work: Gmsoft Limited
Blog: insidebusinesscentral
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/gregorymavrogeorgis

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Suggested answer

YUN ZHU 102,763 Super User 2026 Season 2 on at

Like (1)

Report
Copy link

Link copied!

Alternatively, you could submit this question to BC Viva Engage; Microsoft technical staff should be able to provide a more accurate response once they see it.
Viva Engage - BC Partners | Application Functionality

Thanks
ZHU

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Valerii Khrapal 55 on at

Like (0)

Report
Copy link

Link copied!

Thanks everybody for the answers and confirming a bug. Regarding the situation i have manually deleted all wrong resrvation entries and fixed everything, so at this point no errors on planning. Unfortunatelly its a quite long way for me to raise a ticket because i need to go thought partners. I think im going to submit this question to BC Viva Engage.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Suggested answer

OussamaSabbouh 18,713 Super User 2026 Season 2 on at

Like (2)

Report
Copy link

Link copied!

Hello Valerii,
Based on Microsoft’s planning design, this is not expected behavior: an Assemble-to-Order assembly order is automatically linked to its sales demand by an Order-to-Order reservation, and planning should balance that linked supply/demand rather than create additional assembly orders. The repeated Assembly Orders, duplicate reservations, negative Untracked Quantity, and eventual Inventory Profile / Order Priority error therefore look more like a BC 28.3 planning/reservation defect (or an extension interfering with reservations) than a configuration issue. I would reproduce it in a clean sandbox without PTEs; also test Reserve = Optional and create the ATO quantity before reserving/assigning the existing serial number, because your scenario converts an existing inventory reservation into an ATO reservation. If it still reproduces in standard 28.3, I would raise it to Microsoft with these exact steps—the documentation does not describe this duplication as normal behavior or a configuration requirement.
Regards,
Oussama Sabbouh

1 people found this reply helpful.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No