If I have four parallel operations , it would require 4 X 3 = 12 operations numbers to be put in the previous and next operation fields if the operation number is 3 digit plus a piping symbol it would need 4 characters for each operation number and would require total 48 (12 X 4) characters.
Even if my operation number is 2 digits, with the piping symbol it would need 3 characters each and a total of 36 characters for previous and Next operation field. it is still more than 30.
It would be great if this can be done.
Comments
Totally agree,
I have just had this issue with a customer who have a lot of parallel steps. They use both work and machine centers.
We use both letters and numbers "a|a1|a2......." but still needed to make a workaround by using a dummy "operation no" to sum up "previous operation no".
Category: Manufacturing
We created a supportcall TrackingID#2303280050000432, that was closed with the statment to vote for this idea.
This change is important for the development our ISV product.
Thank you in advance!
Category: Manufacturing
This will be a great benefit for our solution as well.
Category: Manufacturing
I totally agree to get rid of this limitation because currently it is not possible to create complex manufacturing scenarios with Business Central.
But because extending existing field is a breaking change with a huge impact on the current codebase, i will suggest another possible way how to get rid of this restriction..
At the moment it is possible to enter either "200|210|220|300" in field "previous operation no." an "next operation no." in a routing.
An alternative method to enter this is "200..300".
If you now certiffy the routing, busines central will leave "Next Operation No." as it is, but will change "Previous Operation No." from the "Range-Dots spearated String" to a "Pipe seperated String".
-> This is an error in my eyes, but the Msft support already rejected ;(
If we would allow entering parallel operation structures with the "Range-Dots-Method" instead of Pipe separating every operation no. , there will no longer be a problem with the field length of these two fields.
It would be great if Msft could fix (or allow) this in one of the next versions.
I think it can be realized in a reasonable period of time.
Thanks!
Category: Manufacturing
Business Central Team (administrator)
Thank you for this suggestion! Currently this is not on our roadmap. We are tracking this idea and if it gathers more votes and comments we will consider it in the future. Best regards, Business Central Team