I'm new here. Working with this I saw that in M_Transaction, in column AD_Org_ID is stored the ID of the initiator.
My question is what do you think about this? It's k? Shouldn't be this organized by organization's ID? What I'm trying to say is that maybe would be better that in column AD_Org_ID to be stored the ID of the receiver organization.
Thanks!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
>My question is what do you think about this? It's k? Shouldn't be this organized by organization's ID? What I'm trying >to say is that maybe would be better that in column AD_Org_ID to be stored the ID of the receiver organization.
Or maybe we need to store both IDs.
What is the use case?
Kind regards,
Trifon
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
The AD_Org_ID is the org effected by this trasnaction and I think that is correct.
If there is a transfer of goods two locators, and postentially two warehosues, and potentially would two orgs. But, while I haven't actually test this, I always understood there would be two transactions; One minus & one plus.
The AD_Org_ID would be the effected org... so in the case of transfer there would be a MINUS in the from Org and a PLUS in the TO org.
For information & reporting each transaction has a FROM & TO locator. Using this you could derive the FROM & TO Orgs. Each Locator is in one warehouse, each warehouse in one Org.
Assuming the above is the case I don't see the next to change this myself.
colin
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hi,
I'm new here. Working with this I saw that in M_Transaction, in column AD_Org_ID is stored the ID of the initiator.
My question is what do you think about this? It's k? Shouldn't be this organized by organization's ID? What I'm trying to say is that maybe would be better that in column AD_Org_ID to be stored the ID of the receiver organization.
Thanks!
Hi Christina,
>My question is what do you think about this? It's k? Shouldn't be this organized by organization's ID? What I'm trying >to say is that maybe would be better that in column AD_Org_ID to be stored the ID of the receiver organization.
Or maybe we need to store both IDs.
What is the use case?
Kind regards,
Trifon
Hi Guys,
The AD_Org_ID is the org effected by this trasnaction and I think that is correct.
If there is a transfer of goods two locators, and postentially two warehosues, and potentially would two orgs. But, while I haven't actually test this, I always understood there would be two transactions; One minus & one plus.
The AD_Org_ID would be the effected org... so in the case of transfer there would be a MINUS in the from Org and a PLUS in the TO org.
For information & reporting each transaction has a FROM & TO locator. Using this you could derive the FROM & TO Orgs. Each Locator is in one warehouse, each warehouse in one Org.
Assuming the above is the case I don't see the next to change this myself.
colin
sorry my mistake.
there is only one locator on the M_Transaction... I thought there was two.
colin
Hi Trifon,
Yes, I think so too. I need this for an update to a storage table.
Best regards,
Cristina
there is a from & to location on the fact_acct ... that's what I was thinking of. Not useful in this scenario.
But I still think there are two transactions for a movement. One for each Org effected.
colin