Hail, Pay Geeks...

Here in Bath we are experiencing some funnies with (11.5.10) Retro-Notifications Report (not enhanced, by the way), whereby it seems that for some employees, some of their retrospectively applied element entries are not being picked up by the report. That is to say, when one examines the contents of PAY_RETRO_NOTIF_REPORTS, we find nothing for certain entries, but others are present.

We have an SR open at the moment, but I was wondering if anyone else out there has run across this issue before? If so, don't be shy...

Ta in advance

Are the retrospectively applied element entries non-recurring by any chance?

Delboy

No, the elements thus far identified as having this issue are recurring. We did think at first it was to do with element entries generated by absence plans, but that has now been ruled out as other non-plan related elements have been shown to be affected also.

Ok, then, are they recurring elements that have indirect results to non-recurring elements that have further formula processing?

Delboy

Erm... possibly... why might that be an issue then?

Could be. I seem to recall we had a similar problem at JPA. Not sure if it was ever resolved. Might be ok in Enhanced.

Delboy

Interesting - might explain the 'intermittent' nature of the problem, i.e. for the same element, some employees with it appear in the retro-notifs report, others do not. Can't find anything on <insert current name of Metalink here>.com

When I get a moment, I shall persue that further; thank you, young man.

Iwas running a similar thread a while back for enhanced....we have never got to the bottom of it.

We have run a load of tests in a fresh environment but cannot now reproduce the issue

That's the problem we have - we keep getting asked to do something to an individual employee/absence in order to try to reproduce it, but it always works as expected. When we run the Retro-Notifs against a clone of production, however, there is the problem large as life. No obvious pattern to it, either.

Anyway, we have an SR open, and of course if anything comes to light I will share it here.

An interesting development on this - it has come to my attention that there is some process or other somewhere that is repeatedly updating rows in PAY_RECORDED_REQUESTS, thereby conning retro-notifs into thinking that it's not worth looking at those affected assignments....

Is this striking any chords with anyone?