Felix
My feedback
22 results found
-
50 votes
Hi all,
Please note that this idea was mistakenly closed. It has now been reopened, and we apologize for any inconvenience caused.
-
117 votes
Felix
supported this idea
·
-
71 votes
Felix
supported this idea
·
-
51 votes
Felix
supported this idea
·
-
157 votes
Felix
supported this idea
·
-
146 votes
Felix
supported this idea
·
-
272 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…
Felix
supported this idea
·
-
29 votes
Felix
supported this idea
·
-
13 votes
Felix
supported this idea
·
-
8 votes
Felix
supported this idea
·
-
34 votes
Felix
supported this idea
·
-
13 votes
Felix
supported this idea
·
-
19 votes
Felix
supported this idea
·
-
20 votes
Felix
supported this idea
·
-
124 votes
Felix
supported this idea
·
-
39 votes
Felix
supported this idea
·
-
58 votes
Felix
supported this idea
·
-
23 votes
Felix
supported this idea
·
-
25 votes
Felix
supported this idea
·
-
34 votes
Felix
supported this idea
·