Liquid error: Value cannot be null.
Parameter name: key
Microsoft Dynamics 365
Agreed! transactions must be posted in the vendor account for withholding tax authority.
We really need this capability as Work orders should be about the contact. We can derive the Account from that but we are trying to service individuals, not orgs.
Why can't it do this out of the box? Very Frustrating.
It isn't just every non English speaking country, it's every country outside of the US.
Licensing a font seems like a really basic thing that Microsoft's army of lawyers should be able to figure out.
And, I agree that the number of upvotes on this particular item (and Ideas in general) vastly underrepresents the interest in an issue.
My company works in agricultural products and this is a requirement that will limit our ability to share products across multiple legal entities due to the tax/fiscal requirements that may arise; particularly we need this in order to correctly populate fiscal documents in Brazil.
Please fix! Thanks
I mean Table 17 G/L Entry.
> In the case of table 17 change log entries, the reason for not allowing the deletion is that, in case this logging is required by GAAP or company policy , deletion of the entries could mask entries not according to them. Do note that those entries can be deleted by a PTE if Change Log was enabled by mistake.
Why don't you allow their D365BC admins to choose whether they can delete it or not according to their country, company policy or stuff like that?
I assume there are many customers who did not know the deletion for the table was not allowed at all and already had enabled logging on the table17.
There is no announcement for this restriction currently.
At least those customers who already enabled logging on the table17 and want to delete change log entries for table17 now should be able to request Microsoft to delete the entries instead of them.
While there is no workaround to delete those entries, there should be a workaround other than PTE.
If PTE can help this out, please provide sample PTEs with codes.
It would be really helpful for a lot of customers.
Please reconsider this request.
I totally agree, since an object can not reference to itself anyway, so this new behavior is just confusing users.
In the old "C/AL" world, when you created a new function in a codeunit, the default value of the function property Local was Yes (just tested in a Business Central 14.0.37587 Development Environment). I don't know with which version this was introduced, but I think it was a good idea! A comparable functionality would be a good idea as well today.