on
RE:
I agree, AAD ( MS Entra ) authentication towards PostgreSQL Flexible Servers would be something we would really need
RE:
ATP Issue: Inaccurate Second Customer Order Fulfillment Our use of ATP is causing significant inaccuracies, particularly with non-stock items already on order with extended marking. Despite the items on the active Purchase/Production Orders being set as Ordered reserved, ATP fails to honor the reservations. Consequently, the Requested Ship Date provided to the second customer aligns with the earlier receipt date of the first customer's fulfillment order. This discrepancy leads to erroneous ship dates for the second customer. It's crucial for ATP to recognize active Purchase/Production Orders with markings to ensure precise availability calculations. Despite efforts, we've been unable to rectify this issue through our current settings.
RE:
Frankly absurd that this isn't available yet.
RE:
Just checking in to see if the idea I put in a year ago had any traction and found this one from 2017.I guess we're not getting this feature any time soon.
RE:
(RummyBo.Com) Indian rummy gives away ₹51 bonus website listhttps://rummybo.com
RE:
Another example. I would like to give developers the ability to subcribe customers to reports in the production workspace. Currently this requires giving them edit/delete permissions to the production workspace.I should be able to custom edit their permissions to give them access to subscriptions without giving them the ability to delete content.
RE:
It seems that just updating the data file (like.csv) does not refresh the report at all. Updating the .pbix just for the sake of refreshing data is a real pain, especially since we are using the deployment pipelines. It would be extremely beneficial if report would be updated (even within an hour) when data file is updated,
RE:
i think Remove Prepayment feature is there, which is like credit note to Prepayment invoice.
RE:
Yes, please is needed for companies with multible legal entities.
RE:
This still seems to be an issue as of May 2024.This "feature" is hinted at in MS documentation but that relates specifically to the display of Int64 values in Power BI visuals. I believe it also affects some Power Query Table.Join and Table.NestedJoin operations - at least where these are not folded back to source databases.I suspect this stems from that fact that Int64.Type is still basically type number in Power Query, just with facets that indicate that it is semantically an integer. Since type number has to support floating point, and the internal implementation is presumably an IEEE double precision floating point number, we end up with only 53 bits of usable integer precision. (Maybe the Power Query library type ought to have been named Int53).As for resolution - To avoid breaking existing code, maybe the internal calculations should use IEEE quadruple precision instead of double precision. However, I agree with the original poster from 2016 that this is particularly an issue with IDs used for relationships. In this application, the numeric significance of the value is less important than its uniqueness and ability to be compared for equality. Maybe a PQ library type based on binary type with facets, rather than number type, would be more useful? (It would probably also be useful to add e.g. some hashing functions to the library to return values of this type.)