Really nice to see old Navision Erik, very nostalgic. I was working on old Navision while I was in Aarhus DK working for LEC. Lars storm was my trainer from Navison A/s, was really good old days. Thanks for sharing.
Hi Erik tanks for the video. I wonder why all the Vendor or Customer General Information get transfer to the documents if all that data is already available on the Vendor/Customer cards.
I consider TRANSFERFIELDS as a legacy anti-pattern because you are skipping VALIDATE. OK on posted documents and entries where you do not expect validate-code but I expect validate-code on the sales line.
Really nice to see old Navision Erik, very nostalgic. I was working on old Navision while I was in Aarhus DK working for LEC. Lars storm was my trainer from Navison A/s, was really good old days. Thanks for sharing.
Ahh, yes I remember LEC and Lars is still a good friend.
You always add something to my D365 mastery, thanks
Of course you should investigate!
Hi Erik tanks for the video.
I wonder why all the Vendor or Customer General Information get transfer to the documents if all that data is already available on the Vendor/Customer cards.
Because a document, from an accounting legal perspective should be static. You should not be able to change customer information on a posted document.
@@Hougaard Thanks make sense.
Should we not be using WITH anymore?
No, you should never use WITH, but Microsoft are still using it a lot in the base app...
I consider TRANSFERFIELDS as a legacy anti-pattern because you are skipping VALIDATE. OK on posted documents and entries where you do not expect validate-code but I expect validate-code on the sales line.
... and that's a very valid argument, but since it solvable with modifyall, that should also be solvable with transferfields :)
Field names must no be the same to be copied.