Global Tech Assignment Not Working?

[murraymotive]

When copy/pasting a line item from history and/or revision and there is a tech assignment, it carries over that assignment. You cannot change that assignment using the global tech assignment within options. You have to manually edit each line, line by line.

Example:


Is there a workaround or fix for this?

[Silky7]

Dave,

The lines paste using the default Parts and Labor technicians specified in the Shop Data setup window. If these are set to Please, Select they should populate that way when pasted. The exception is <none>, which will then include the same assigned technician as the original lines.

[murraymotive]

Dave,

The lines paste using the default Parts and Labor technicians specified in the Shop Data setup window. If these are set to Please, Select they should populate that way when pasted. The exception is <none>, which will then include the same assigned technician as the original lines.

Ours are set to none. The issue still remains. We cannot override the assignment.

[Silky7]

Correct. If set to <none>, the technician from the original line item will copy over. Line item assignment overrides the order assignment. Is it feasible for you to switch from <none> to the Please, Select entry?

[ricmorin]

Some of us LIKE and prefer <none> because if you forget to fill a technician and times, the program reminds us that there is a labor set to <none>. By using please select, we completely override that useful feature.

I see no reason why I would want to retain a tech assignment when copying from History.

[murraymotive]

Some of us LIKE and prefer <none> because if you forget to fill a technician and times, the program reminds us that there is a labor set to <none>. By using please select, we completely override that useful feature.

I see no reason why I would want to retain a tech assignment when copying from History.

Bingo.

[Silky7]

I understand the desire for validation. I think there was some confusion on my end because typically when something like this gets reported, it's because the behavior suddenly changed in a release. As far as I can tell from testing various versions it's always observed the same logic I stated above.

Long story short, it changes how this issue is classified and prioritized.