Requester role modification

Is there a way to set up a Security role or security feature that wouldn't delete requisition numbers, it would just keep the same one open until they added items and released it? in RQC.
I think it has some thing to do with the Requester role but can't figure out what exactly needs to be done in order to get this to work

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Legacy Contributor

You want to prevent a user from deleting a requisition before they submit / release it? How do you plan on addressing a mistakenly entered requisition?

VID035_Colorization_Color Options for Fields.zip

Legacy Contributor

That i haven't really thought of yet, I was going to try this in our Development box first. I guess now i will have to test that to see how that works with our Supply Chain folks.

VID035_Colorization_Color Options for Fields.zip

Legacy Contributor

We adjusted the code to only allow deletes for unreleased requisitions. This gives people an opportunity to back out a mistaken entry. All other statuses remain, even if rejected to allow for a proper audit.

VID035_Colorization_Color Options for Fields.zip

Legacy Contributor

I take that this was done in the actual COBOL code and not in Security?

Could you explain to me what you did in the code to make this happen.

VID035_Colorization_Color Options for Fields.zip

Legacy Contributor

I believe that RQC deletes the Header in the event that there are no lines on the Requisition. In order to leave the Req open, add one line. You can take away the 'Delete' functionality through Security Roles, thus stopping Users deleting Reqs, apart from Super Users (with another Role), for example.

VID035_Colorization_Color Options for Fields.zip

Legacy Contributor

Peter, we are trying to do just that, remove the 'Delete' function through Security. Have you successfully did this in Security, and would you be able to share what you did in Security? I know that the Roles might not be the same but if I could see what you did that would be helpful.

VID035_Colorization_Color Options for Fields.zip

Legacy Contributor

Quite correct. Though at times, this does led to confusion. Users start entering a requisition (header) at end of the day and figure to just add lines the next day. Only to discover the system deleted the header due to no lines. Unfortunately, some departments have high turn over and retraining of all the subtle points is an issue. I would prefer RQC not do any automatic deletion. Always require users to take action one way or another. Otherwise, they are guessing as to why it happened and we in IT cannot confirm as the record is deleted.

VID035_Colorization_Color Options for Fields.zip

Legacy Contributor

if(form.PROCESS_TYPE = 'D') then NO_ACCESS else ALL_ACCESS, against RQIF.1

VID035_Colorization_Color Options for Fields.zip

Legacy Contributor

Is it actually generating a req number without adding lines? I don't know that it is a matter of deleting vs you left without adding so when you return, it is resetting to your defaults.

If you add a line, you definitely get a req number and it will stay until forcibly removed.

VID035_Colorization_Color Options for Fields.zip

Copyright © 2025 Infor. All rights reserved.