All

Kind of an urgent request this:

I am using a function within a formula to get hold of an ASG_PROC_PTD balance as at a particular date - as you do. If that balance changes because of some retrospective activity (e.g. salary change) then retro-pay will obviously maintain that figure on the fly as it were; however, I have a bit of a problem: I was assuming that the 'in memory' figure would be visible to the function, when apparently it is not.

Know ye of a function (or trick or jape or merry wheeze) that would allow that "retro-adjusted" in-memory balance to be visible?

I don't think it is stored anywhere CT. Once retro has had its way with the balance it gets deleted. Why would you need to see it anyway?

Delboy

Well it's this wretched Pension Reform thing - the requirement is to allow for retrospective changes that influence the annualised figure as at the end of March, to be taken into account in calculations for the rest of the year.

I am currently working on a work-around to this issue, watch this space!

Retro elements have an 'Original Date Earned'. Could you not use that date from the run result of the retro and apply the value to the original ASG_PROC_PTD balance referenced in your function?

Delboy

Sorted, no need for a function...

Cheers anyway fella!

Just for info this is not always populated

What was your solution then?

I could tell you, but...

... I'd have to understand it myself first!

Some significant tweaks to it this morning, if I can prove beyond doubt that it works then I will try and explain it! No pressure, then, as it only needs to be in ready for system testing by Feb 20th!

Good Luck matey!

I am almost there, I have however one hurdle remaining - I want to selectively suppress some retro entries that are effectively causing double-counting of that retro'd figure in the balance.

I tried writing a formula to try and suppress it, but having attached that formula to the retro element it doesn't seem to execute it. Is that because it is a retro entry? Before anyone says it, there is no 'Pay Value' on the retro entry.

You're right CT, formulae don't execute from retro entries.

Delboy

Rats!

Cheers for confirming my worst fears though mate.

* Ponders the unfairness of it all *

OK, well after some further analysis, the issue of selectively suppressing superfluous retro entries won't actually start to become real until April 2013, so in that respect I have a breathing space.

I did manage to create a udf that seeks out specified retro entries with a source start date older than a specified threshold, and thereby producing a contra-value to negate their effect. That seems to work a treat. But too late to include it in our solution for this coming April.