on
RE:
The issue is perhaps not so much 'CTP' but rather limiting 'Planning Optimization' from 'Optimizing'. The engine now tries to optimize and use existing supply and on-hand for the first orders that need to be shipped. There is no decent way of allocating a specific (firmed) future supply or on-hand to a specific demand besides either marking or reservation. But in a distributed supply chain, it's not so evident to mark or reserve.The recent addition of 'Keep pegging for approved planned orders' is only working for planned orders. But once firmed, the pegging is not maintained leading to the issue described above.Using 'batchid' as 'coverage planned' dimension can help in tying supply with demand but you may run into issues in case you want to configure Item coverage for these items as this in not supported at the moment. Therefore, support for itemcoverage for batchID in coverage planning could also be a solution to this issue.
RE:
https://fix.lcs.dynamics.com/Issue/Details?bugId=983228The resolution "There is no logic to traverse through different unit of measure conversions relating different units."..Is incorrect. That is what base units are for. The issue is resolved by duplicating the standard conversion (LB > OZ) directly on the product, the lookup just doesn't work correctly when standard conversions are used.
RE:
We are working on Customer Insights(Marketing) there we have "Analytics" Report which is based on marketing data, our need is to customize that report based on our requirements but we are not able to customize that (there is no edit option).So, could you please help us to customize this report. Scenario: The report appears to be designed for “Analytics” purposes, but it is inadvertently exposing data from other business units where the user does not belong.This situation raises concerns about Dataverse Security rules, as it seems to breach those rules.Can you please reconfirm whether the report adequately adheres to security rules of dataverse.
RE:
not only on sales quotes but also on project quotes!
RE:
Please support this proposal with your vote. It would make the work much easier.
RE:
The current implementation is difficult to sell to the customer and requires constant adjustments in the customer project.Please support the proposal with your vote.
RE:
This should be fixed. As a workaround, we can post manual journals. But adjustment functionality becomes meaningless. Please have this fixed.ThanksDeepa Paranthaman
RE:
Correction: No 1 above should say "When entering a sales order for a make-to-order assembly item...."
RE:
It would be good to have the ability to filter on the Posting Group at the transaction level on the AR and AP Reports, not just the Vendor/Customer Level. A Vendor/Customer may have transactions based on transaction that post do different Posting Groups. Without this option there is not the means to reconcile your aging report for example to each GL Account.
RE:
Should be a way to reverse a posted sales order invoice. not purchase order invoice.