dnnslbrwn
20th October 2005, 21:09
While I realize that BAAN is just trying to protect me from myself, I frequently find that I must receive the same lot code from more than one supplier. Is this controlled by a setting somewhere that I can unset?

We have many compaines, and while one manufactures the product and I might obtain it directly from them, I also can purchase that same lot from another distribution company that has too much (and I don't want to "sell" it back to the mfg company before buying it).

Currently I create a second lot code XXXXXX_2, receive it with that code and then adjust down and up to get it back to the original lot. Just hoping to avoid this.

Cheers,

-Dennis

BaanInOhio
21st October 2005, 04:05
"Is this controlled by a setting somewhere that I can unset?"

Doesn't look it it can be controlled. It is dictated by the 'lots' table (tdltc001), where the primary (unique) index is: project, item, container, lot. The type of lot (purchase/production) or supplier isn't part of the index.

dnnslbrwn
28th October 2005, 18:23
Thank you for your reply, but what I meant by "controlled" was can I turn off the check that requires a lot to be received from the same supplier.

I see where you are coming from with the supplier not being part of the index key and thus only allowing one record in the lot table for each lot, but I don't care about the supplier field at all on the lot table, I would rather treat that field as MFG, and if a middle man is used to acquire the product, I don't care.

Does this make sense?

vahdani
28th October 2005, 22:27
Hi Dennis,

your need to buy the same charge from different suppliers is legitimate and I think this may be needed by other Baan users as well. Unfortunately this functionality is hard coded in the session script of the session and I don't think SSA is going to change this anytime soon. Your only solution: Let your Baan-Partner customize the script!

dnnslbrwn
29th October 2005, 02:12
Well, my solution today was to use ttaad4100 and change the linked supplier on the lot table. Not pretty, but it works.

vahdani
29th October 2005, 11:47
...another fine solution that I'm sorry to say I didn't think of.... ;)