A client reports three changes from previous versions that he wishes hadn't been made. I'm hoping you will tell me they were unintentional and will be rectified.

1) You can no longer leave the Expected Ship Date blank. What reasoning went into making that change?

2) It used to be that if a customer had a ShipTo code "blank" and no ShipTo code was specified as the default in the Entry Template, the "blank" ShipTo code would be used by default when entering an order. That is no longer the case. Now it ignores a "blank" ShipTo code

3) It used to be that when selecting a ShipVia from the list, you could type the first letter of an entry and it would jump to that entry. That no longer works. I understand you changed the field from a Combo Box to a Finder Field because you expanded the number of possible entries. Is this an unavoidable consequence?

Thanks

Steve

Support:

I'm OK with #1 and #2 is, as Steve says, an unavoidable side effect of adding more Ship Via's. But #2 is a problem because a lot of long-term Adagio users have Customers with a Ship To assigned a blank code which operates as a default Ship To location.

Hi Bruce,

#1 was made a requirement because EDI systems require an expected ship date. You can set a default value in the company profile on the Processing Options tab ("Expected Shipdate spread"). A site does can ignore the field if they so choose, but they cannot leave it empty.

#2 Can this be resolved by using GV-RW to clean up the file or setting the code to something other than "blank"? Just asking because relying on a blank code for some specific processing is probably not a good idea. I'll ask R&D to take a look.

#3 is an unavoidable side effect of moving from a combo-box to a Finder field.

Hi Andrew

Re #1 - It should be an option. Forcing someone to enter what they know is a bogus Expected Ship Date is a step backwards, not forwards. What percentage of Adagio OE users are integrated with EDI?

Re #2 - I guess I can use GV-RW to change the codes from "blank" to something else. But what about the OE History?

Better would be to use Toolkit for Adagio, but only for companies that already own it. And I wouldn't want to do that if you are going to restore the functionality back to the way it was. Which I hope you do now that you aware of the issue.

Steve

Hi Steve,

#1. They don't have to enter a value in the Expected Ship field. Skip the field on the template.

#2. It's probably worth waiting a bit before making any changes here.

Hi Andrew

#1 - Let me play with that and get back to you. They sometimes do want to use the Expected Ship field.

Steve

Hi Steve,

You can skip it in the tab sequence and still be able to click into it if it needs a specific entry.

BTW - if you want to be able to separate Orders where the Expected Ship is significant from those where it isn't, then set the spread to 0. Then you can exclude all orders where the expected ship = the order date in your Filter.

Hi all,

#1 - we also require an expected ship date to accommodate the new Auto-invoice orders function as it can select by Expected Ship Date, and blank dated orders would be skipped. The same for printing Order Confirmations and Picking Slips by date range, where Expected Ship Date can be used for selection.

Here's another complaint...

When entering a miscellaneous charge on an order, the default charge is the top one on the list. Before, you could put whichever charge you use most frequently at the top. Now, the list sorts alphabetically, so you can't easily control what appears at the top, especially if you want a certain description to appear on forms.

This is really slowing down data entry.

One idea is to allow a user to type in a letter when entering a misc charge and have it jump to the first matching item on the list. Still not ideal, but better.

Steve

Steve:

I had a client make the same observation. They edited the Miscellaneous Charge they wanted as default and put a "1" at the start of the Description. Not ideal but they are content for now.