If a new control number is made it will create two entries on the schedules and need to be adjusted to clear. There really isn't a good reason to have to see that an entry came from this feature.
Can you provide an example of this. I am not sure I understand what you are asking.
I can’t think of one right now because I choose not to use it because it does this.
What it does is: say the control # is 123456. If you reverse current and post ahead the current number would reverse as 123456, but the post ahead number now would be 123456E. That makes looking up a transaction knowing the control # of 123456 would pull up no info because it now has an E on it. I see no reason for adding anything. They said it let you know that that transaction was reversed and posted ahead, but you could find it easily as is and can’t find it at all with the E.
Hope that makes sense!!!
Yes I understand now what you are saying. What you are referring to as control #would be what we call Reference Number on the Journal entry. The E being added to the Reference Number that was "created" by the system through the reverse function was done for audit trail purposes.
However, I do understand what you are saying. So are you saying that either the "Edited entry" be left as the original Reference Number or allow the user to define the new Reference Number?
Sure, that would work.
Sorry Cindy which would work...
either the "Edited entry" be left as the original Reference Number or allow the user to define the new Reference Number
I think the “edited entry” number should remain the same as the original entry number.
Thank you for your input Cindy
You won't be notified about changes to this idea.