Etta Thornburg
My feedback
22 results found
-
16 votes
Etta Thornburg
shared this idea
·
-
24 votes
Etta Thornburg
shared this idea
·
-
30 votes
Etta Thornburg
supported this idea
·
-
61 votes
Etta Thornburg
supported this idea
·
-
266 votes
Dear colleagues,
Thank you for raising this idea.
This was part of the CERV cycle in 2025, but did not make it to the final list.
During the analysis, 3 possible approaches were discussed, each has a different estimation and effort:
Option 1: New dedicated process type
- It will be possible to mark specific items as "unavailable", similarly to the way it is possible to mark them as "missing"
- Items marked as "unavailable" will be considered as "not in place"
- The new "unavailable" option will appear as a possible process type in all the places where there is a list of process types, including configuration options such as Fulfillment Unit Rules
Option 2: Mark a location as "unavailable"
- It will be possible to mark a location as "unavailable"
- All items in this location will be considered as "not in place"
- The difference from option 1 is that when an item…
Etta Thornburg
supported this idea
·
-
3 votes
Etta Thornburg
supported this idea
·
-
4 votes
Etta Thornburg
supported this idea
·
-
37 votes
Etta Thornburg
supported this idea
·
-
75 votes
Etta Thornburg
shared this idea
·
-
181 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
21 votes
Etta Thornburg
shared this idea
·
-
7 votes
Etta Thornburg
supported this idea
·
Etta Thornburg
shared this idea
·
-
10 votes
Etta Thornburg
shared this idea
·
-
88 votes
Etta Thornburg
shared this idea
·
-
77 votes
Etta Thornburg
supported this idea
·
-
28 votes
Etta Thornburg
supported this idea
·
-
24 votes
Etta Thornburg
supported this idea
·
-
72 votes
Etta Thornburg
supported this idea
·
-
86 votes
Etta Thornburg
supported this idea
·
-
70 votes
Etta Thornburg
supported this idea
·
Is there any info as to a timeline for this enhancement?