I was searching for some help on this and found my old unanswered post from some years back on the same problem.
I have just had this happen again. User was creating a new item 25926. User after entering new item details could not save it and got the error message that item already existed. Eventually after closing down user was able to create their new item with a new item number. For some reason their action had renamed an existing item 25924 that had been created by another user a short time before to item 25926. However the sales order that had already been created for item 25924 was not renamed. So it looks like they have kicked off the renaming function for the inventory table but not the other related tables? I have now renamed 25926 back to 25924 and everything seems fine. Looking for any suggestions as to what the bug could be? Using Axapta v3.0 Regards - Steve --- In Axapta-Knowledge-Village@yahoogroups.com, "slees32" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hoping someone can shed some light on how this problem could have > occurred. We are unable to come up with a solid theory we can prove. > > - On Oct 10th a user created a new item 19464. A purchase order was > created for this item number. > > - On 14/10 another user went into items to make a change to the item > name. By their account, when they hopped off the record it asked them > whether they wanted to save the changes? (as it should) They said yes > and when the screen had refreshed the item number had been changed to > 19487. This item number happens to be the next available item number > at that date/time. > > - The database log shows the user has renamed the item number at the > same time as they changed the item name. However this user (and most > users) do not have access to renaming numbers. > > - The purchase order with the original item number 19464 has not been > updated though. So it seems like only a partial rename has occured. > > We have checked back through the item table and cannot find another > instance where this has occurred in recent times. > > The only possible cause we can think of is that during this time we > were doing some clean up work on User Group Permissions. > Is it possible that this somehow affected this user at this time? > > Thanks, > > > Steve >
