Unable to Void Range of AP Checks in GP 2013

Question Status

Verified
NOLA asked a question on 29 Aug 2014 9:49 AM

The ability to void a range of checks for multiple vendors was broken in GP 2013. It is my understanding that this issue was fixed in GP 2013R2 but I do not see it on the fix list. Is it resolved in R2?

Thanks!

Reply
Verified Answer
Mahmoud M. AlSaadi responded on 29 Aug 2014 10:19 AM

In GP 2013 R2, you can include a range of document numbers regardless of the vendor ID. There have been several suggestions on the MS connect and this has been resolved as requested.

So to void a list of documents, leave the "Vendor ID" field empty, and then on the range, take the list of all documents available and click "Redisplay". The window will no longer prompt a message requiring a vendor id. Now, check the documents you want to void by ticking the "void" check box and process.

Reply
NOLA responded on 29 Aug 2014 10:23 AM

Thank you Mahmoud. I needed to confirm prior to recommending that they update to 2013 R2.

Reply
rwilson responded on 17 Feb 2017 8:18 AM

Will this work with GP 2016?

Reply
NOLA responded on 17 Feb 2017 8:38 AM

Yes. As stated above, it was fixed in 2013 R2.

Reply
rwilson responded on 17 Feb 2017 10:01 AM

I’m sorry, I’m trying to void all checks within a date range with many different vendors.

We send unclaimed checks to our fiscal officer after one year.

Is it possible to void different vendors and then combine all into one vendor?

Reply
Verified Answer
Mahmoud M. AlSaadi responded on 29 Aug 2014 10:19 AM

In GP 2013 R2, you can include a range of document numbers regardless of the vendor ID. There have been several suggestions on the MS connect and this has been resolved as requested.

So to void a list of documents, leave the "Vendor ID" field empty, and then on the range, take the list of all documents available and click "Redisplay". The window will no longer prompt a message requiring a vendor id. Now, check the documents you want to void by ticking the "void" check box and process.

Reply