What about a DENSE_RANK in the Case When to only pull the latest systemnotes.date? DENSE_RANK(CASE WHEN ({systemnotes.field}= 'Document Status' AND {systemnotes.newvalue}= 'Approved for Posting') THEN {systemnotes.name} ELSE 'Not Approved ' END) WITHIN GROUP (ORDER BY {systemnotes.date}) This is giving me an error, I am…

I tried this in our PROD account (as system notes doesn't necessarily transfer into SB for testing of this nature). We are very close. I have only the lines that are Pending approval and Approved for Posting lines, but we only need the 'latest and not both lines. Is this where the 'custom' field could come in?

This removed the duplicates, but I am still not showing the approved by field. This gives me a few more ideas though. I will document what I have found.

Successfully got the WF to set field value, and the custom field to populate on the record. Unfortunately the custom field is not populated on the View/SS. I have tried: Results: Formula (Text) Changing the custom field to pull the default value of approved by (this duplicates lines again) Add the approved by 2 directly to…

Tried to Set Field Value in the WF. Successfully able to set the value in the WF, however the field is 'blank' in the record.

Yes, sounds simple, but not really. I have added the view and get duplicate lines. I have attempted the solutions in the answers from multiple forums. I was also looking at adding to our WF, where I SET FIELD VALUE using the CASE WHEN statement. It worked, but was returning the incorrect result. Another option that I was…

Successful! You are amazing.

Solution/Results: Thank you for the great ideas. I wanted to share with you our solution. In the JE/AJE form, we 'hid' the Schedule, Start Date, End Date, Residual and Related Assets fields in order to bring the Due To/From together with the Elimination Column after the country column. Theoretically, moving these fields to…

Understood. Is there a way to make the column mandatory only if elimination is checked? or if account = XYZ? I don't think so as we can't even see the column. What about if we use a Return User Error if Out of Balance field <> $0? in a WF?

FYI: for Option 2, I was able to create a WF that upon Create/Edit/Update of the Account the custom field is set to be the same as the Eliminate Intercompany Transactions. Other than the initial set-up (editing the current imported accounts with eliminate checked and saving to run the WF), there should be no future manual…

I successfully created the customized system template by NOT entering the information inside of the if employee.password has content. Entering the 'text' inside this 'block' was unsuccessful. Once I entered into the first paragraph, (which didn't have an IF statement) it worked as designed. Just for informational purposes,…

Success! It appears that the text didn't show up in the second paragraph, maybe because it was inside an \IF statement. By entering the information in the first paragraph (full text)? it appeared to work. Can you tell why the text would show up in the first paragraph but not the subsequent ones? There was no reference to…

Just tested by changing to the Standard Customer Center Access Email and it successfully changed the email. hmmmm?????????

No Workflows/No Scripts

Per your recommendation, I logged into FF and attempted to send the customized BRP - User Access Email and it was unsuccessful. I created a new user Test/Test I double checked the Custom BRP - User Access Email to validate that the changes were showing on the template I double checked the Email Preferences to validate the…

Yes, we are OneWorld. Great Idea, I will check that now... Subsidiary is showing BRP - User Access Email under the User Access Email Template. This is the custom system template, so this is correct. I really wish we could add screenshots in the comment box. Not being able to do that any longer is tough. Thanks! Paula

Here is the screenshot of the report that we need a rolling 24 month

I will give you a screenshot. For some reason images are not posting in comments any longer.

Yes. Please.

We have a financial report, a General Ledger Report. The accounting team wants to see the report based on a Rolling 24 months. In the Filters at the bottom of the report there is a native Rolling 18 Months, but not a Rolling 24 Months. This is just a column of the report representing 24 months of data? Thank you for the…

Just clarifying a few points on this thread The 'Approved' field is in the SCHEMA for JE, however the Insufficient Permissions error is based on the fact that it is a read only field

We were unsuccessful in 'POST' the JE already approved through the SOAP/XML. We removed the APPROVED field and created a WF to approve the JE upon entry in NS. We are still looking for the SOAP/XML way to APPROVE the JE at Entry in NS but for now we are successfully POST with a sister WF to approve automatically. I don't…

Yes, more permission issues I believe. <platformCore:code>INSUFFICIENT_PERMISSION</platformCore:code> <platformCore:message>You do not have permissions to set a value for element approved due to one of the following reasons: 1) The field is read-only; 2) An associated feature is disabled; 3) The field is available either…

Following up on this thread. This was related to permissions to custom records and fields. Once we supplied the correct permissions to the integration user the SOAP posted, not 100% but at least we are at a different error message now.

I haven't made any changes to the templates, that is what is so perplexing. I have made the adjustments and have asked my user to reprint the checks. Fingers crossed! I researched in SuiteAnswers for a couple of hours and never found this article. Thank you for finding this for us. Regards, Paula

Just to clarify, I am referring to the asterisks before the AMOUNT of the check. In the case above it is **9,999.00. User is stating only ** is showing, there is no amount any longer. Thank you.

Yes Yes Very interesting observation. Printing type set to Advanced. Found the ** in the template. I understand the ** is a feature to ensure that the check isn't forged or otherwise revised. My user is stating that they have never seen this before. Could this be part of the new 2022.1 release, released early? User is…

This is what I am trying to get to. Class ID - Class Name - Subsidiary ID - Subsidiary Name

Is it possible that the internal id = OthAsset? nlapiLookupField('account', nlapiGetRecordId(), 'type') 'OthAsset'

Sorry, this is still throwing errors