Daryl Foxhoven

So we have a customer that is requesting that when we Export the Table data...that we consolidate information that contains the same information. For example:

Table
Item # GL Code Location Amount
1234 5000.10 103 100.00
2345 5010.20 105 200.00
1234 4102.20 103 100.00
1234 5000.10 103 300.00


The Export would be the following:
1234 5000.10 103 400.00
2345 5010.20 105 200.00
1234 4102.20 103 100.00


As you can see, there were 2 rows that contained the same Item #, GL Code, and Location....so we combined them to 1 row for the Export and added the Total Amount.

Is this possible?

 

Customer has a Material Ticket that get's scanned in with a Unique Ticket #.  Later, vendor will send an invoice for all Material Tickets.  What I'm trying to do is update the Material Ticket with the Invoice # from the vendor using the Ticket # which is the Match Code on the Material Ticket and also occurs on the Invoice.  My issue is the Material Ticket # is in a table field for the INvoice as there are many ticket #'s that the invoice is for.  I created a Workflow and is trying to update the Material Ticket when an invoice is scanned using an Assign Data, and I'm going out to the File Cabinet, looking for a Material Ticket that listed in the table field...however, it keeps erroring out.  I've tried the following and with the resulting error message:
DW_DOCUMENT_TYPE = 'Raw Material Ticket' AND DW_TICKET_NUMBER LIKE &"%"GV_Ticket_Number_Expense&"%"
 

Error in system activity: [1: FileCabinet Id: d69e99e9-90c7-4745-8734-94f2edf3804e, Column: HAULER_INVOICE__] Incorrect syntax near '&'.

Created an arithmetic expression to assign the following "%" + GV_Ticket_Number_Expense + "%" to GV_TempTicketVar1
Then in my Assign To used the following: DW_DOCUMENT_TYPE='Raw Material Ticket' AND GV_TempTicketVar1 like DW_TICKET_NUMBER

Error in system activity: [1: FileCabinet Id: d69e99e9-90c7-4745-8734-94f2edf3804e, Column: HAULER_INVOICE__] [1: Filecabinet] FileCabinet destination has 0 or more than 1 records

There's only 1 Material Ticket in the system...so I feel like I have something backwards where because there's more than 1 ticket # in my table...it's giving me this error. 

Any assistance would be appreciated!!
 

Customer is using QR barcodes on printed documents, however, the QR code can occur randomly within the batch of documents. &#160;They are scanning each batch as an individual PDF file...is there a way that DocuWare Barcode can read all the pages scanned and capture the data from the QR Code regardless of what page it shows up on? &#160;If so how...I'm unable to get this to work.<br> <br> Thanks!!

Client has a file cabinet where they have 2 locations using the file cabinet (File Cabinet = Billing, Location = Tempe or Memphis).&#160; What the client would like is for us to provide a security profile that allows User from Tempe to be able to &quot;Search, View, Edit, and Store&quot; in the File cabinet Documents where Location = Tempe and &quot;Search, View ONLY&quot; Documents where Location = Memphis.&#160; Then Vice Versa for Memphis and Tempe Documents.&#160; Is this possible to do WITHOUT creating separate file cabinets or dialogs?<br> <br> Thanks!

<p>&lt;p&gt;So it has come to my attention while doing an On Prem to Cloud Migration in 7.7 that in 7.7 you can no longer do a search in a File Cabinet and find the total # of records without a very painful process.&amp;amp;nbsp; Here's what I was told:</p> <p>"If a number of results are beyond totalCount limit, web clients will not show the exact number of results anymore.&nbsp; Instead a simplified, rounded down number of totalCount limit is used to indicate that more results beyond the upper limit were found&gt;</p> <p></p> <p>Examples:</p> <p>-Limit 10,000:&nbsp; 10K+</p> <p>-Limit 22,193:&nbsp; 22K+</p> <p>-Limit 1,000,000:&nbsp; 1M+</p> <p>-Limit 4,000,000: 4M+</p> <p><strong>The arrow for umping to the last page of results will now point to the "last known page" (based upon upper limit).&nbsp; Advancing further is only possible page by page unitl the very last results are displayed.</strong></p> <p>Representation of upper limit is static for all pages of results:&nbsp; i.e. it does not increase when user navigates to a page containing documents beyond the totalCount limit.</p>

This doesn't seem to be the case in 7.7 Cloud as when I do a search, it just shows 10k+ and I can't even go to just the last page to see total as it forces me to go from 100 to 101, 102, 103, 104, etc..

Why does Local Data Connector stop working when there is a Desktop App Update??  This is very problematic in that we have many clients using Workflows where information is obtained in the Workflow via the Local Data Connector AND is used to trigger AIX Jobs OR other Workflows.  When this stops working, it really creates an issue b/c you can't just Update Desktop Apps and have the Workflow continue on.  This is turning out to not be a viable solution b/c of the amount of downtime, troubleshooting, and "re-entering" of information due to the Connector not working.  Is there a way that the Updates can automatically be applied b/c no one has time or money to sit and watch Desktop Apps to see when an Update is available.

I have a customer that needs to be able to "edit" Word docs they are storing in DocuWare.  However, once the final revision is made (we have a Workflow changing the Status=Final) they want that document locked down so it's View ONLY.  Is there a way to accomplish this WITHOUT having to create a separate file cabinet...if so, how?

Thanks!

Figured it out

I have a customer that wants to setup a condition so that any Invoice scanned is less than 4 pages, it goes to a clerk for review (as their AR invoices should be a minimum of 4 pages).  I initially thought I could at least capture the system field for DWTOTALPAGES in Workflow designer, but appears it's not available which is mind boggling to me why system fields would not be available.  I then though perhaps I could capture it via AutoIndex job....again...I can use DWTOTALPAGES as a match condition, but I cannot use it to populate an index field.  Seems very antiquated that it's not available....does anyone have a workaround or know how you might be able to accomplish this?

Thanks!