Planning Worksheet - Ignore late Sales Orders


We want to ignore sales orders past their shipment date when planning. This is because the customers will not accept late orders, and would add new orders if still required. We cannot delete these orders or change the quantity to that shipped as they may be needed to be amended prior to invoicing.

Has anyone done this before? Would an amendment to the Sales Line Shipment date Filter in CU 99000854 Inventory Profile Offsetting be all that is needed?

Hoping for positive answers.



We had changes to MPS/MRP so that part-delivered orders were icluded in calcualtions:

Codeunit 99000854 Inventory Profile Offsetting.

Table 99000853 Inventory Profile.


Theoretically not a difficult change conceptually, but it is in a complex area of the code so it maybe difficult to actually get it to work! I advise you go to your NSC and specify the change and get them to do it (depending upon the price) [:D]

Ah Steven, we have done that and I’d prefer them to change it if we cannot keep standard, but do want to keep an eye on them[;)]. Any pointers to keep the price down is certainly welcome, as are alternative measures.

Thanks jsrark for the pointers. I though part delivered orders were included anyway

there is a field on the sales line table “Planned” it is set to yes when the line has been included in a production plan so that it is not looked at again for the new planning. You could run a non-printing report to manualy change this field to yes for sales orders past there shipment date. If you run it in the job schedular each evening it will be always up to date. and the the lines will not come up on your planning routine. You can always change it back if you need to include it in future planning. this should not require any changes to the planning routine.

Thank you themave, that sounds ideal -simple, easy and standard. Cheers [B]

Steven, thats why I like to ask… NSC wanted about 10 days to investigate!

I find 10 days to “investigate” an incredible statement. I have been involved in complete re-writes to customer specific requirements (leaving the standard there) that have taken under half that time. I am not a developer so I am on thin ice, but a day to investigate and maybe even solve it is more along the lines I was thinking.

Sometimes the easy alterations I am told actually take a long time, and the ones I cannot see how they can do are quick, so I will hold my hand up and freely admit to not being a programmer, but 10 days to investigate!!!

Okay here is 10 minutes work from a non-developer - this is very dangerous and not recommended, leave this work to the professionals. Anyway in the Inventory Profile Offsetting CodeUnit 99000854 there is a section called

DemandtoInvProfile(VAR InventoryProfile : Record “Inventory Profile”;VAR Item : Record Item;OrderDate : Date;ToDate : Date)

My understanding of this is it copies the demand into the inventory profile record to allow planning. The last line of the first section reads:

SalesLine.SETFILTER(“Shipment Date”,’>%1&<=%2’,0D,ToDate);

If I run the worksheet today for a new item selling 10 to be shipped on 01/06/06 it tells me to order 10.

If I alter the line to read
SalesLine.SETFILTER(“Shipment Date”,’>%1&<=%2’,TODAY,ToDate);

It tells me to order nothing.

I then load an order due on 18/06/06 for 15 and the system tells me to order 15, but not the 10 where the shipment date has passed.

That is a simple test, but seems to work. My issue is I could have broken EVERYTHING here because I am NOT a developer. Post this code change in the developers forum and ask for some inpput and see what they say.

Are you sure it was 10 minutes rather than 10 days? [:D]

I can easily believe 10 days turn around just to get an answer, it would probably take another 10 days to actually do the work, and they will bill a few hours time to find the answer. And what they will probably do is post the question on this forum and let someone else actually figure it out for them, then they will bill the customer for it. They probably have a 10 day turn around so they can make sure the forum has enough time to respond


OK, 10 days may be an exaggeration / misunderstanding, and I take all you say on board. As mentioned before I do want them to do the work and investigate just don’t want to pay for their learning curve.

The suggestion you made I have already put to them and now it is just 2 hours to test and approve (support) or not. I would also put David’s suggestion to them as this seems to keep as standard and therefore much less chance to break anything.

I like to post here because I do appreciate your comments and was not trying to be facetious earlier.

I have been a FD and personally experienced the costs involved with a ‘fiddler’ on an accounts program. Coming out to the ERM was especially bad for us, but gave me my first major promotion. It is also why I like Navision in that important tables are secure from the likes of me.


This is why Freelancers like myself can make a good living for quite a time, to come. Freelanicng int he Navision world is all about keeping it simple, and knowing where to look to find the solution.

Its amazing how much a Navision Cstomer can save by having a third party Freelancer look at the Design specs BEFORE the NSC starts the clock ticking.

I guess its why I keep getting called “The Navision Police”.

Hi Richard

I did not think you were being facetious at all I was just flabbergasted at that length of tim before doing anything - as you said you would be paying for their learning curve!

What was David’s suggestions? I cannot see it in this post or am I being blind?

I am getting your experience free though [:)]

TheMave David I meant - turn sales line to planned and it will ignore in planning - not the famous David Singleton! I will let you know how it turns out.

If I was not willing to give it free I just would not be here!

Ahhh I now see my confusion, the David reply was after David but referred to a David called TheMave. Easy.

Best of luck.

I would have preferred remaining “THEMAVE” but the famous David requested in another thread that we update our signatures to include actual names, and since he is one of the main gurus around here I added my name.

But back to the original post, I am an end user and when ever posible I try to solve problems without changing code, as any change makes even simply upgrades expensive. We just spent around 48k upgrading from 2.0 to 4.0, and now to go from 4.0 to 4.0 sp1, it is estimated to be another 10k, and we have very limited modifications. So, if you can do it without modifing standard code, that would be my recomendation, Navision is very complete, you just have to figure out how to make it work for your situation, usally a few non-printing reports and a little effort will do it.and unforcunately most solution centers first responses are to make a program change. In fact most every suggestion on this forum is to make program changes.[;)]

Clearly cost is not an option when the offer of help is free!

That is part of what makes this forum so valuable. But even free advice comes with a price, as suggestions are put into place, the user someday will have to upgrade or install a service pack, or a hotfix, and that free change will then cost a pretty penny. So the more people can learn the better.

We had a known issue come up that was fixed in service pack 1, regarding bank reconcilations, but since we didn’t upgrade our entire database to SP1 at a cost of 10k, we had to pay to implement just the fix, cost around $500 to have a free sp1 fix actually installed. Isn’t the enhancement program wonderful. you get bugs fixes for free, you just have to pay to actually use them.

Good point about the cost of modifications and upgrades.
No surprise that Solution Centres recommend code changes…
However there is a deep and widespread conflict in delivering business solutions: the supplier has to make a profit from the implementation and the consumer needs to limit costs.This usually drives both parties to cut corners on staff training, preparation and support.
I respect and enjoy the truly impressive level of expertise that is shared every day on this site but my expereince of solution centre staff in many countries in Europe (with some notable exceptions) is that generally they are poorly trainined and badly managed. This is not helped by the pathetic documentation and training material issued by Microsoft.
And I presume that is why the forum offers so much to so many!

That’s the end of my tantrum - do you agree about the conflict? How do you get the best from your Microsoft partner.

Themave wrote:

there is a field on the sales line table “Planned” it is set to yes when the line has been included in a production plan so that it is not looked at again for the new planning.

I am not so sure about the definition and want to compare with the definition I’ve got from F1-help as follows:

Planned Field

The Sales Line Table

This field is automatically set to Yes by the program if the sales line is included in the production planning.

Do you mean in your words that it is set by user of navision or system…? based on the definition is by system.



I am a bad example as I am not a programmer, hence my protestations of innocence (I do not write code for customers) [:D]

It may interest you to know your NSC will be able to provide you with full electronic versions of all the manuals very soon. I believe Microsoft are making these available in July, but you know how they are on timescales.

With regards to getting the best out of NSC’s if you have a good relationship and talk about what is required, and they are not going to rip you off and you pay a fair price, then hopefully both sides will be happy, but there are many experts out there making a living out of picking up the mess NSC’s of made of implementations, but being on the side of an NSC I will say they are NEVER 100% to blame!