Inventory Reconciliation

64 views
Skip to first unread message

Sarang

unread,
Aug 18, 2014, 10:00:27 PM8/18/14
to erpnext-u...@googlegroups.com
Hi Everyone,

I was going through the Inventory Reconciliation tool. It specifically says available for Non-serialized inventory only.

Appreciate your guidance in the following scenario:

1. I have Product001 coming in through different suppliers (Supplier A and Supplier B) at different prices and different times. 
2. During the Material Dispatch, I need to select the item from Supplier A to a Customer

I know I can do this through Serialized inventory by assigning Batch Nos. to the different lots I purchase from Supplier A and Supplier B. However, my problem is, incase I need to reconcile the inventory of Product 001 from Supplier A, I can't use the inventory reconciliation tool, as the inventory becomes Serialized.

What is your suggestion in this scenario? Do I have to go the customization way or there is any SOP way?

BTW, while working with OFBIZ / OPENTAPS, the system creates different Inventory Item IDs for every incoming inventory lots. So even though the product is same, you can differentiate it with the Inventory Item ID.

Thanks,

Sarang

Rushabh Mehta

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 4:34:10 AM8/19/14
to erpnext-u...@googlegroups.com
On 19-Aug-2014, at 7:30 am, Sarang <sara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Everyone,

I was going through the Inventory Reconciliation tool. It specifically says available for Non-serialized inventory only.

Appreciate your guidance in the following scenario:

1. I have Product001 coming in through different suppliers (Supplier A and Supplier B) at different prices and different times. 
2. During the Material Dispatch, I need to select the item from Supplier A to a Customer

I know I can do this through Serialized inventory by assigning Batch Nos. to the different lots I purchase from Supplier A and Supplier B. However, my problem is, incase I need to reconcile the inventory of Product 001 from Supplier A, I can't use the inventory reconciliation tool, as the inventory becomes Serialized.

What is your suggestion in this scenario? Do I have to go the customization way or there is any SOP way?

Seems like you will have to create a batch for each Item. Maybe we should update stock reco to do batched and serialized inventory too. Can you create a GitHub Issue?


BTW, while working with OFBIZ / OPENTAPS, the system creates different Inventory Item IDs for every incoming inventory lots. So even though the product is same, you can differentiate it with the Inventory Item ID.

Thanks,

Sarang


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ERPNext User's Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to erpnext-user-fo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/erpnext-user-forum/f8740bed-f4d6-4d37-ab95-2fdf78f6da99%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Sarang Deshpande

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 6:22:37 AM8/19/14
to erpnext-u...@googlegroups.com
Hi Rushabh,

Thank you for the prompt response.

Is there a possibility where someone can sponsor the feature / enhancement, if your team takes it up on priority, considering the worthiness of the feature?

I hope I don't sound arrogant, but if it is so, we can approach the client to get them to donate / sponsor the feature.

Thanks once again

Sarang
 


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/erpnext-user-forum/F891440A-A8DE-443E-8432-6576C1FF98CE%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Regards,

Sarang

Rushabh Mehta

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 6:33:32 AM8/19/14
to erpnext-u...@googlegroups.com
On 19-Aug-2014, at 3:52 pm, Sarang Deshpande <sara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Rushabh,

Thank you for the prompt response.

Is there a possibility where someone can sponsor the feature / enhancement, if your team takes it up on priority, considering the worthiness of the feature?

I hope I don't sound arrogant, but if it is so, we can approach the client to get them to donate / sponsor the feature.

No thats a good suggestion - there are some partners, but we have not seen them contribute anything back to the product, so we are thinking we should start doing good features ourselves, but we are swamped with tons of issues... Do you have a developer we can train?


wa...@xavierltd.com

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 7:39:26 AM8/19/14
to erpnext-u...@googlegroups.com
‎Hi All, 

Trust everyone's doing great today. While w‎orking with the new version (4) of our beloved ERPNext, I encountered an issue which I'm hoping someone else has been able to find a way around.

‎Question: how do you get a user with a certain role to see only a portion of a list which is relevant to them? I'll give a common scenario below.

Managers of various departments need to give authorization for several documents (Expense Claims, Leave Applications etc) before it gets to the final approver which could be a General Manager or CEO. 

In version 3, all we needed to do was:

1. Insert 'Department' field into relevant docs 
2. Create 'Manager' role 
3. Add Department value (e.g Sales, HR, Logistics)‎ in user properties for all employees 
4. In Permission Manager, select 'Department' as condition for ‎Manager role in the relevant docs. 

With these steps, each manager would be able to view and manage documents from employees only within their departments/units. This also ensured that once an employee's department was changed, his new manager would automatically have access to his documents.

How is this achieved in version 4?



Kind regards,
Olawale

Sarang Deshpande

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 8:11:50 AM8/19/14
to erpnext-u...@googlegroups.com
Thats a good gesture. We sure would love to get involved.

Thanks



For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Regards,

Sarang

wa...@xavierltd.com

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 8:15:37 AM8/19/14
to erpnext-u...@googlegroups.com
Hi Rushabh, 

Sorry to digress a bit but I think partners (and members ‎alike) would absolutely love to contribute back to the product if there's a clear channel of doing so and we're aware of it. 

Quite often on this very forum, I've seen members practically begging to sponsor features but there just doesn't seem to be a clearly defined path to doing so. 

It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a  ‎clear discussion with partners (and members) as to 'how' we can contribute back to the product. I believe this should be one of the topics to consider at the upcoming conference 

Cheers!


Kind regards,
Olawale ‎
From: Rushabh Mehta
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: [erpnext-user-forum] Inventory Reconciliation

sara...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 9:25:54 AM8/19/14
to erpnext-u...@googlegroups.com
I second the opinion. I don't think anyone would mind sharing the enhancement back to the community. 

However, looking at the quality of the application ( I am not a programmer) from functional standpoint, it seems like an outcome of a strict QC and PM, and the thought process behind it, which I think is limited to few. 

It will be curious to see how community will develop the enhancements keeping the functional ease and aesthetics in mind ‎. A definite guide in these lines would assure the PMCS of the quality of contributions and faster issue resolutions. 

Conference would be an exciting event to look forward to.

Sarang
Sent from my mobile device.
Message has been deleted

Seraaj Muneer

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 12:57:12 PM8/19/14
to erpnext-u...@googlegroups.com
Hello, I'm a Java programmer. Very comfortable with Python as well. I would more than gladly be happy if you could give me training on how to assist with the project. More specifically in terms of extension. For instance, I'd like to write a module (if that name is right) to use the graduated pay as you earn rates in the payroll module. As it stands, one only has fixed tax rates for the payroll module, while most salary taxes are graduated. 

So yeah, I would more than happily want you to train me. 

Rushabh Mehta

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 1:07:15 PM8/19/14
to erpnext-u...@googlegroups.com, erpnext-dev...@googlegroups.com
Olawale,

Thanks for bringing this up!

On 19-Aug-2014, at 5:45 pm, wa...@xavierltd.com wrote:

Hi Rushabh, 

Sorry to digress a bit but I think partners (and members ‎alike) would absolutely love to contribute back to the product if there's a clear channel of doing so and we're aware of it. 

There is - its called GitHub!

2. You can fork
3. You can send a pull-request to get your changes accepted in the product.

Read this for a detailed note:



Quite often on this very forum, I've seen members practically begging to sponsor features but there just doesn't seem to be a clearly defined path to doing so. 


I think there is no communication from partners. We have no idea what you are upto. I see there are some developers active now, but I don't see them contributing back. We understand it is a matter of time and also those who contribute back will keep their users happier, because their contributions will be future-proof...


It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a  ‎clear discussion with partners (and members) as to 'how' we can contribute back to the product. I believe this should be one of the topics to consider at the upcoming conference 

Will surely cover this. Thanks for bringing this up.

Rushabh Mehta

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 1:07:47 PM8/19/14
to erpnext-u...@googlegroups.com
On 19-Aug-2014, at 10:27 pm, Seraaj Muneer <sina...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello, I'm a Java programmer. Very comfortable with Python as well. I would more than gladly be happy if you could give me training on how to assist with the project. More specifically in terms of extension. For instance, I'd like to write a module (if that name is right) to use the graduated pay as you earn rates in the payroll module. As it stands, one only has fixed tax rates for the payroll module, while most salary taxes are graduated. 

Seeraj, try this out:


Its a bit dated, but will help you get started with development.

Look forward to your contributions!


So yeah, I would more than happily want you to train me. 

On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 02:00:27 UTC, Sarang wrote:
Hi Everyone,

I was going through the Inventory Reconciliation tool. It specifically says available for Non-serialized inventory only.

Appreciate your guidance in the following scenario:

1. I have Product001 coming in through different suppliers (Supplier A and Supplier B) at different prices and different times. 
2. During the Material Dispatch, I need to select the item from Supplier A to a Customer

I know I can do this through Serialized inventory by assigning Batch Nos. to the different lots I purchase from Supplier A and Supplier B. However, my problem is, incase I need to reconcile the inventory of Product 001 from Supplier A, I can't use the inventory reconciliation tool, as the inventory becomes Serialized.

What is your suggestion in this scenario? Do I have to go the customization way or there is any SOP way?

BTW, while working with OFBIZ / OPENTAPS, the system creates different Inventory Item IDs for every incoming inventory lots. So even though the product is same, you can differentiate it with the Inventory Item ID.

Thanks,

Sarang


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ERPNext User's Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to erpnext-user-fo...@googlegroups.com.

Umair Sayyed

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 1:58:59 AM8/20/14
to ERPNext User's Forum
Hello Wale,

My inline replies below.


On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 5:09 PM, <wa...@xavierltd.com> wrote:
‎Hi All, 

Trust everyone's doing great today. While w‎orking with the new version (4) of our beloved ERPNext, I encountered an issue which I'm hoping someone else has been able to find a way around.

‎Question: how do you get a user with a certain role to see only a portion of a list which is relevant to them? I'll give a common scenario below.

Managers of various departments need to give authorization for several documents (Expense Claims, Leave Applications etc) before it gets to the final approver which could be a General Manager or CEO.

In your previous version, what did Employee select for Approver in their Leave Application or Expense Claim? Was it immediate Manager of employee, or GM/CEO who ultimately approves it? As per the standard approval system Expense Claim and Leave Application, only Approver as defined by the Employee can Approve or Reject request made by Employee.

http://imgur.com/xKb23jt
http://imgur.com/dS5eSRa

In version 3, all we needed to do was:

1. Insert 'Department' field into relevant docs.

You can insert Custom Field linked with Department master.

http://imgur.com/ReCIzZY
 
2. Create 'Manager' role.

Assigning role of "Expense Approver" and "Leave Approver" will be suffice, if that manager has authority for Approving or Rejecting.
 
3. Add Department value (e.g Sales, HR, Logistics)‎ in user properties for all employees .

You should create User Property to define Department for each Employee. User Property to also be created for Manager listing Department they will have access to.

http://imgur.com/6gR0Fst
http://imgur.com/CwqMuew
 
4. In Permission Manager, select 'Department' as condition for ‎Manager role in the relevant docs. 

In the upgrade Permission Manager, if "Apply User Permission" is checked in Role Permission Manage for specific Role, all the User Property created for that user will be applied.

If you don't particular User Property applied, you should check "Ignore User Permission" for that field from Customize Form. Check following link for more information on this.

https://erpnext.com/user-guide/setting-up/permissions/user-permissions
 
With these steps, each manager would be able to view and manage documents from employees only within their departments/units. This also ensured that once an employee's department was changed, his new manager would automatically have access to his documents.

If you want multiple level approval system working (Employee-Manager-CEO/GM) using standard approval system only, following steps should be followed:
  1. Employee should select CEO/GM as approver in their Leave Application or Expense Claim.
  2. The Expense or Leave Approver (or Manager in your case) should be given only read permission on Expense Claims and Leave Applications respectively. After reviewing, they will escalate Claim or Leave request to CEO/GM. The User Properties define based on Department will be applied on managers.
  3. Since CEO/GM who will be defined as Approver already will Approve/Reject request submitted by Employee.

How is this achieved in version 4?



Kind regards,
Olawale

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ERPNext User's Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to erpnext-user-fo...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Thanks and Regards,
Umair Sayyed
www.erpnext.com

wa...@xavierltd.com

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 5:47:44 AM8/20/14
to ERPNext User's Forum
Hi Umair, 

Thanks for your reply. The ‎issue is at step 2 in your outline:

‎2. The Expense or Leave Approver (or Manager in your case) should be given only read permission on Expense Claims and Leave Applications respectively. After reviewing, they will escalate Claim or Leave request to CEO/GM. The User Properties define based on Department will be applied on managers.

The last part of your statement does not happen in version 4! The user properties defined based on Department do NOT get applied on managers... at least not visibly.

The reason could be because those documents already have permissions that restrict users with other fields like ‎"From Employee".

There should be a way to let the system override the 'From Employee' restriction for a particular role (in this case, manager role) without ignoring user permissions for that field. If user permission for the 'From Employee' field is ignored then it means all employees would be able to view all Expenses which is obviously not what we want! 

‎I hope you're seeing the issue now. Any suggestions?


Kind regards,
Olawale Olowu
wa...@xavierltd.com
Tel: 08075390014
From: Umair Sayyed
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 6:59 AM
To: ERPNext User's Forum
Subject: Re: [erpnext-user-forum] Permission Manager Issue

Umair Sayyed

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 8:29:44 AM8/20/14
to ERPNext User's Forum
Hello Wale,

Replies below.


On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:17 PM, <wa...@xavierltd.com> wrote:
Hi Umair, 

Thanks for your reply. The ‎issue is at step 2 in your outline:

‎2. The Expense or Leave Approver (or Manager in your case) should be given only read permission on Expense Claims and Leave Applications respectively. After reviewing, they will escalate Claim or Leave request to CEO/GM. The User Properties define based on Department will be applied on managers.

The last part of your statement does not happen in version 4! The user properties defined based on Department do NOT get applied on managers... at least not visibly.

Please verify two things:
  1. User Property should be set for Manager on Department.
  2. In Role Permission Manager, "Apply User Permission" should be checked for the Manager's role.

The reason could be because those documents already have permissions that restrict users with other fields like ‎"From Employee".

There should be a way to let the system override the 'From Employee' restriction for a particular role (in this case, manager role) without ignoring user permissions for that field. If user permission for the 'From Employee' field is ignored then it means all employees would be able to view all Expenses which is obviously not what we want!

Ignoring Permission on "From Employee" field is not required, because User Property for Manager will be have Employees defined in it. Have you define User Permission for Manager - Employee?

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

wa...@xavierltd.com

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 9:00:08 AM8/20/14
to ERPNext User's Forum
Hi Umair,

Yes, the 2 conditions you mentioned have b‎een set accordingly 

No, the user properties for manager does not have employees defined because as per your outline, the final approving authority (ie GM/CEO) is the one set as approving authority. 

I do not welcome the idea of manually adding ‎employees to manager properties because it doesn't seem like a workable/sustainable solution. What it implies is that if a department (e.g Sales) has 100 employees, then we need to individually add 100 employee IDs to the manager's user permission‎s!

What of in a scenario where employees are transferred from one department to another (this happens quite often)? The system will still allow the former manager to see/approve expenses until the employee IDs are manually dele‎ted from one manager's profile and added to the other??

Why can't this just work like version 3 where you could simply set a cond‎ition for the manager to view docs for all employees whose department matches his own? 

This was a much more graceful solution and it had the added advantage that once an employee's department changes, the new manager automatically gets access to his docs and the former manager stops seeing them.


Kind regards,
Olawale ‎
From: Umair Sayyed
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 1:29 PM

Rushabh Mehta

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 9:04:01 AM8/20/14
to erpnext-u...@googlegroups.com
Maybe this can be linked directly to the Department / Branch for Leave and Expenses. Maybe create a table where you can set employee and whether that employee is a leave / expense manager and that would define the rules for approval...




Umair Sayyed

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 9:16:39 AM8/20/14
to ERPNext User's Forum
Or perhaps option of Role-wise "Ignore User Permission" will do it.

If we can Ignore User Permission check on "For Employee" field just for the Managers Role, there will be no need to create User Property for each Approver-Employee.

Currently "Ignore User Permission" option in the Customize form is applied for all the users.


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/erpnext-user-forum/F6E05D5D-63E5-46EE-92CE-0B93BDACA95F%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

wa...@xavierltd.com

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 9:52:59 AM8/20/14
to erpnext-u...@googlegroups.com
‎Hi Rushabh, 

Thanks for the input. I however think that would be a very limited solution. Don't forget that the principles apply with most any document. Many organizations work with several documents that go through various approval processes. In version 3, it was fairly easy to map most processes ‎using a combination of workflow and permission manager.

I think you need something similar to the version 3 approach where we could give access based on a link within the docs matching user properties of certain roles


Kind regards,
Olawale ‎
From: Rushabh Mehta
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 2:04 PM

wa...@xavierltd.com

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 9:58:06 AM8/20/14
to ERPNext User's Forum
‎Hi Umair, 

That sounds like an excellent idea! That might just be the way forward. How soon can you implement this? Its a desperately needed solution 

I'm excited about this already : )


Kind regards,
Olawale‎
From: Umair Sayyed
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 2:18 PM

wa...@xavierltd.com

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 10:39:06 AM8/20/14
to erpnext-u...@googlegroups.com, erpnext-dev...@googlegroups.com
‎Hi Rushabh, 

So if I get this correctly, the recommended process would be:

1. Add your issues to GitHub‎ or check for existing issues 
2. Develop the solution 
3. Send a pull-request to get it added to the core application 

I wish I knew this a couple of years ago! Of course, most of the customizations that we do as an organization are quite ‎extreme as we adapt ERPNext for uncommon and peculiar use cases but we've also done some smaller customizations that would have been generally beneficial to the community. 

‎Thanks for the info. We'll definitely put this into consideration in all our future projects. 

Thanks again and keep up the great work!


Kind regards,
Olawale‎
From: Rushabh Mehta
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 6:07 PM
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages