FRx conflicting report results

[barbola]

I have a 6-month rolling cost report set up in FRx. When I run it for all the units I get incorrect results, but when I select one of the units that had wrong numbers, it works fine.

There are three companies with different year ends in the tree. The main company has divisions separated out in the tree.

The column layout is as follows (sort of):
@edate @edate @edate @edate @edate @edate
BASE BASE BASE BASE BASE BASE TOTAL
BASE-5 BASE-4 BASE-3 BASE-2 BASE-1 BASE
CUR CUR CUR CUR CUR CUR A+B+C

It is a six-month rolling report. The other two companies have the same columns, so I set the report options to use Period Dates. It works for those two companies and it works for the most recent 3 periods of the Main company, but the first 3 months values are incorrect...like...wayyyy off.

The main company is selected for the report and the output is to Excel vie OLE. We are on Great Plains 7.50g53 and FRx 6.5.184.

When I select all the units to run, it shows the proper dates at the top of the Consolidated worksheet but if I look at the worksheet for the individual divisions the most recent periods are correct but the first three periods show from 2004....and I don't know why? It's the same company as the main company. Same fiscal periods but some are okay and some are not.

I compacted the database, re-created the tree, re-selected all the units and still get incorrect results.

I doubt if anyone has seen this. I re-checked my columns, recreated some, selected diff company to run it under and nothing seems to work.

 

[jymm]

Hey barb - this sounds framiliar --- check out what I ended up doing . Somehow the detail records in the tables were different than the summary ones

http://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=1071309&page=1

I posted some SQL there to help identify the problem children - then since there were not a 'boat load' I zapped/corrected them with an accountant watching over my shoulder.

 

[barbola]

The report was set up to use Period Dates rather than Period Numbers because the companies have different year ends. I tried recreating the column layout and the problem was still there. I recreated the tree, and left out the other two companies. Then it worked. But as soon as I added those companies to the tree, even though they were not part of the column layout units, it still didn't work.

The numbers were valid balances but reporting on the wrong period. But depending on where I had the other two companies in the tree, it would use that companies fiscal year instead of the main reporting company as the "base" period. I wanted to report on June-Nov'05.

Company 1 year-end is Jan 31 (report periods 5 thru 10)
Company 2 year-end is June 30 (report periods 12,1-5)
Company 3 year-end is August 31 (report periods 10-12,1-3)

When Company 2 was higher in the tree than company 3, then the results in the June (Base-5) column for Company 1 was using June, 2004....because this was the 2005 fiscal period for Company 1 (Feb/04 - Jan/05).

When Company 3 was higher in the tree, then June, July and August were incorrect. Weird. Yet selecting individual units worked fine.

The report finally worked when I selected Company 3 as the reporting company. I guess you have to select the company with the LATEST year end closing date when doing this.

Our vendor is taking it up with Microsoft because they have had other customers having problems using @edate in the column layout.