Dynamics 365 Finance

If you, after creating a payment propoal in a vendor payment journal, wants to add another invoice to the payment using Settlement for the journal line, then the payment note should automatacally be updated with the additional text according to the setup in default descriptions. Also if an invoice is removed from settlement, te payment not should update automatically.

This was the functionality until approx version 10.0.26 and it should be reinstated

In AX2012, the Customer settlement form allowed to settle multiple transactions at once by clicking on "Update" and without getting the form closed.

The same thing does not happen in D365 F&O. After settling customer transactions and clicking on Post, the Customer settlement form gets closed. The expectation is that the customer settlement form should not get closed even when we have settled multiple transactions and an "Update" option should be provided as it was in AX2012.

If you use centralised payments across company for vendor payment and use a method of payment which uses a bridging account you can only settle the bridged transactions if you create the vendor account in the payment company.

A dimension attribute error is return unless the vendor is also in the payment company.

Unable to return DimensionAttributeValue record for dimension SystemGeneratedAttributeVendor with value SP000005, in legal entity w093, because a record doesn't exist in table VendTable through view DimAttributeVendTable.

The vendors are not used for any other purpose in the payment company except to make the payment and therefore this adds considerable data migration effort (especially when 50+ companies and many thousands of vendors). Ongoing maintenance is also required for new vendors and process wise always have to ensure created in invoice company and repeated in payment company.

It contradicts the purpose of centralised payments and intercompany account that you have to duplicate the party id just to settle a bridged transaction.

In Belgium, for the Belgian customers, the enterprise number must be filled in in addition to the Tax exempt number.

The enterprise number contains text and a ten-digit number.

The idea is to deduce the Enterprise number from the VAT ID (as the ten-digit number is the same) for the Belgian customers.

Because as there are 2 registrations ID to create (Enterprise number & VAT number) for Belgian customers, it's a risk to forget to create the enterprise number.

Furthermore, in AX2012, the Tax exempt number was deducted from the Enterprise number.

SCENARIO/ISSUE:

Let's say, User #1 created a new vendor bank account and set to expired the existing ones.

User #2 then generates a payment proposal and tries to settle an invoice that is previously tagged with the old, expired vendor bank account.

At this point, there is no warning if the vendor bank account on the transaction is already expired. User #2 then went ahead and generate the payment, not knowing that it had the incorrect vendor bank account details.

RESOLUTION:

With the current design, users need to set the new/valid vendor bank account into the 'Alternate account' field in the payment proposal lines.

FEATURE REQUEST:

To make User #2 aware that expired vendor bank accounts are being used in the vendor payment proposal lines (before they generate and send out the payment file), it would be best to add into the Payment proposal lines form the same vendor bank account validation that now exists on the vendor transactions, where it is currently throwing the following message where applicable: 'The bank account is inactive. Select an active bank account’

The desired warning/error message is similar to it with a slight variation: 'The bank account on the line is inactive. Select an active bank account as an Alternate account’

A malicious actor can store and distribute malicious files on D365. Also, an attacker might be able to upload malicious executables or malicious documents and execute commands in the victim user's browser, including operations in the application on behalf of the victim user or exfiltrating sensitive information, such as a session identifier. 

Please consider applying the following constraint regarding the file upload functionality:

• Malware scanning should be implemented on all uploaded files. 

Currently, consolidate online does not appear to have functionality to correctly convert balance sheet accounts.

Under IAS 19 balance sheet accounts should be revalued from foreign currency at the closing date. Consolidate online revalues the movement in the period to this date, however it will ignore the opening balance, thus the total closing balance is always converted incorrectly. In large non-current accounts, this can lead to quite big differences!

I would suggest that consolidate online functionality be designed so that it can correctly convert balance sheet FX.

New functionality Financial Tags to be Included in Financial Reports (MR). So we can group or see the details in the MR.

On an approved or confirmed purchase order, it is noticed that if we make a Request Change that edit the unit price, the PO will need to be re-approved through workflow and re-confirmed. Upon reconfirmation, a new record would be generated in "Purchase order confirmation" (001).

Now, if we make a Request Change but instead only make a change on header (method of payment for example), i's noticed that the PO will be automatically approved and confirmed. This request change, however, does not generate a new Purchase order confirmation record.

However, if we make a third Request change which requires re-approve and re-confirm again (similar to request change number 1), it will be noticed that the new record's number will skip number 002 and show up as 003 instead.

It appears that despite not generating a new record on Purchase Order Confirmation, request change number 2 would still be counted.

Cause:

When we confirm a PO, the PO confirmation journal number is created according to the count of purchase order version:

VendPurchOrderJour::setDocNum(): this.PurchOrderDocNum = strFmt('%1-%2', this.PurchId, VendPurchOrderJour::numberOfPurchaseOrderVersions(source));

When a PO was approved automatically by workflow, it will also be confirmed automatically, and no confirmation journal will be created. However, a purchase order version will still be created.

Thus, upon the next confirmation, the system will still take count the auto confirmation, leading to the Document Number on VendPurchOrderJour showing 3 instead of 2

Suggestion:

For better consistency, request changes which trigger auto approval/confirmation should either generate a confirmation journal or should not be counted upon the generation of new confirmation journal DocNumber

Our client raised a bug where they set Bank module access to for a particular calendar month expecting that it will prevent users from posting/reconciling or performing other actions in the Bank ledger during the Period-end process. The client was surprised to learn that users were able to carry on performing their day to day tasks despite Bank module being closed.

We tied to find any official documentation, which would specify restricted activities when each sub-ledger access is set to None, but there was nothing available.

When we raised a ticket with Microsoft and were told the following "When status is set to It only blocks posting to GL during bank reconciliation. Bank reconciliation will not post any voucher to GL if there is no adjustment or new transaction".

The above explanation from Microsoft indicates that the remit of the Ledger calendars module access functionality is very limited and to some extent counter intuitive, because users would at least expect to be prevented from posting payments(AR/AP) to bank ledger when the Bank module access is set to None.

After discovering that setting Bank module access to did not prevent them from doing their daily activities, our Client started to feel nervous about using the Ledger calendars to restrict access to sub-ledgers during Period end, because they were not sure what restrictions users would have.

Microsoft need to provide documentation where they will details what activities and transactions are restricted when each sub-ledger access is set to None.