Does anyone know why, when you cancel a cheque run in A/P, the system still actually posts the payments, it just doesn't apply a cheque number to them? It should be that if you cancel the cheque run/posting process that the whole process gets cancelled rather than a bunch of payments being posted to vendor accounts without assigned cheque numbers. is this a bug?

thanks,
Tanja

Assuming you cancelled the cheque run via the Payables program (rather than using Windows End Task function) all cheques printed by the program (successful or not) will have been assigned a cheque number.

If at any point before the Payables cheque run finished all of its steps the user preformed an End Task on Payables then there is no way of knowing what information (such as cheque numbers) may have been lost.

Most likely if you have cheque records with no cheque number then the later is what occurred.

If the process had been allowed to run its normal course then when it is finsihed printing cheques Payables would ask if the cheques had been printed successfully Yes/No. If you selected yes Payables will post the cheques to the Vendors account. If you selected No then you will be ask if any of the cheques printed successfully. Those that you indcated as having been printed successfully will be posted to the vendors account and the remaining (with cheque numbers assigned) will be flagged as voided. At any point if you try to exit from the cheque printing you will be asked if you want to void all of the cheque printed with the same result as if you had indicated they had not printed successfully.

How do define a cancelled cheque run? Are you using the Print Post Checks and Advices to print checks or a Manual Check batch to process cheques?

Adagio Payables does not write unapplied cheques to vendor records if you choose to cancel posting. So if you could desribe in some more detail the steps you followed in cancelling the cheque run, perhaps that could shed a little more light on things.

What version of Adagio Payables are you using (look at the Help menu and choose About)?

1. The cheques were printed using Print Post Checks and Advices. Print/Post was selected, Yes was selected when asked if you want to Print and Post Checks, the starting check number was verified, and then Print was selected. Once Print is selected, a status box appears with a Cancel button. Once it was realized that the wrong printer was printing checks, the Cancel button was clicked. The system had only processed vendors to "M" and therefore only assigned cheque numbers to those vendors, but for all vendors subsequent to that, the payments were posted and applied to the vendor accounts without a cheque number associated with the payment. When going into the Check Reconciliation screen, the top portion of the cheque list includes those payments posted without cheque numbers. We were able to void those "checks" however this shouldn't have occurred in the first place. If the process is cancelled, using the Cancel button, it should cancel the entire posting, or at the very least should not post payments for which check numbers had not been applied.

It did not ask you if the cheques were printed correctly?

When you hit the cancel button, a box appears headed "Last Printed" and the message asks for the number of the last check that printed correctly. It also says to enter 0 if none printed correctly.

If you leave 0 in the box and hit ok, the ready to print screen appears again with the "next check number" advanced as it assumes checks were ruined.

When you close this box, the message warns that not all checks were printed and asks if you want to void the entire check run. At this point you can answer yes to close the box and void all checks in the run or no to go back to the screen where you verify the next check number.

When you void the checks, they will appear in the check reconciliation list, with check numbers, vendor names and amounts, but already voided.

Could it be that someone said the checks were ok, or re-started the check run, or maybe got a windows error and shut down at that point?