4,763
The default 40750i report is tripling results when run. It worked fine in SL 7 this system was upgraded from.
I have tried clicking the Select Distinct Records option in the Crystal report but that doesn't fix it. Any ideas?
*This post is locked for comments
Has anyone else stumbled upon this problem with the OM Commission report tripling the number of lines in SL2011 fp1? One of our customers tried using the 40750C report format, and is having the same problem described in this thread. Most of their orders involve partial shipments, which I believe is the identified issue with the view VR_DMG_40750 that is used by all of the commission report formats. I haven't located an answer to this problem -- still searching the forums for an answer.
:) Stating the obvious here, but you have verified that the underlying view is also tripling the records correct? I.E. it is a data problem at the view level as opposed to a problem with the Crystal Report?
I appreciate your time on it Gregory. I'm torn between wishing you saw something obvious and glad you didn't :)
Elaine, I am able to reproduce it with the data in a test environment and just me logged in.
Butch,
See if you get the same results if no one else is log into SL.
I ran a transaction with multiple shippers and a consolidated invoice and it seems to work correctly. See the screen shot below:
As you can see the last invoice has 2 records but the amounts are correct and no duplication.
The only other difference I found in the view is that the 2015 version has Set ANSI_NULL On where the version 7 was set off. But I doubt if that impacts it.
Because the old view works, the problem would have to be related to the new view but I'm at a loss what it could be.
No - unfortunately it isn't checked.
I'm am going to beat on it some to though.
Look at OM setup Invoicing Tab and see if Consolidated Invoicing Available is checked. That would allow multiple shippers on a single invoice. If so I believe that would create that situation.
I am testing it now.
I just looked at a few pages and it seemed like it was three. After my first post I did notice one that had four.
I am a replacement VAR for this client so I am new to their process, but I can't think of any reason they would have multiple shippers based on how they run things. I need to investigate that further.
I saw an FP1 bug that described this problem similar to what you saw in that view, but when I compare the 2011 FP1 hotfix view to the 2015 stock view, they turned out to be the same.
I'm going to review their OM data to see if this multiple shippers idea has legs.
Share
Report
All responses (
Answers (
