Discussions
Stay up-to-date with the latest news from NetSuite. You’ll be in the know about how to connect with peers and take your business to new heights at our virtual, in-person, on demand events, and much more.
New AI Community Guidelines. Please review and follow them to ensure AI use stays safe, accurate, and compliant.
Keep an eye out for upcoming NetSuite events, including meetups, workshops, and webinars. These sessions are a great way to connect with peers, learn from experts, and stay current on the latest NetSuite updates and best practices. Registration links are provided in each event.
SuiteWorld | October 25–28, 2026 | Las Vegas Where our community gets ready for what’s next!
SuiteWorld brings thousands of innovators, builders, and leaders together to learn, connect, and shape what’s next. This October, explore how to build a stronger foundation for growth through inspiring keynotes, major product reveals, hands-on sessions, and unforgettable moments—all in one place for our biggest event of the year. Join us
SuiteWorld brings thousands of innovators, builders, and leaders together to learn, connect, and shape what’s next. This October, explore how to build a stronger foundation for growth through inspiring keynotes, major product reveals, hands-on sessions, and unforgettable moments—all in one place for our biggest event of the year. Join us
Editing Purchase Order created by Bulk Processing - Incorrect Department at Line Level
If a Purchase Order is created using the 'Order Items' process (Context is shown as 'Bulk Processing' in System Notes), then the line level department on the PO for each Item will correctly show the department set on the Item.
However, if we then edit that PO to add more items, it seems that those additional Items default to the User's department instead of the Item's department (and in some cases we're not even sure it is the User's dept - but another random one!).
Is this expected behaviour, or do we have something wrong that is causing this?
I can probably workflow / script an override to overcome this, but I'd prefer to know if this is intended/expected?
0