Maximo

Expand all | Collapse all

BMXAA4494E-The date for an actual must be in the past.

  • 1.  BMXAA4494E-The date for an actual must be in the past.

    Posted 9 days ago

    We have a situation where mobile devices have on occasions been out of sync and are a few seconds ahead of the server time.

    When they send labour transactions they are accepted because we have the system variable LABTRANSTOLERANCE set to 0:05 minutes.

    The issue is that when the Work Order status is updated to COMP the error "BMXAA4494E-The date for an actual must be in the past. Specify a past date or wait until date has past to continue".

     

    Should the LABTRANSTOLERANCE also be applied when completing a Work Order?



    ------------------------------
    Tim Singline
    TasWater
    Launceston AU
    0407 578 675
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: BMXAA4494E-The date for an actual must be in the past.

    Posted 8 days ago
    Hi Tim

    The labor transaction tolerance is designed to assist with entering the labor for a given period beyond the current timestamp, which you have an excellent use case.  However, when you complete a work order AND have not specified the actual finish date, then Maximo will use the greatest finish date of a labor transaction.  This may be your issue.  So Maximo is not broken.

    Therefore the solution is:
    a) enter an Actual Finish date
    b) wait until the time has past on the labor transcation.




    ------------------------------
    ===============================
    Craig Kokay,
    Lead Senior Maximo/IoT Consultant
    ISW
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Ph: 0411-682-040
    =================================
    #IBMChampion2021
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: BMXAA4494E-The date for an actual must be in the past.

    Posted 8 days ago
    This was suggested as a RFE (https://ibm-ai-apps.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/MASM-I-356) and was declined but wasn't explicit about honoring the LABTRANSTOLERANCE (though they were encountering the same thing). The SUPPRESSACTCHECK MAXVAR will suppress it entirely so a user could modify the value to 12/12/2201 instead of 12/12/2021 for example. I wouldn't recommend that.

    I've definitely heard the request before but agree with Craig. If this is important you can also try and submit a RFE with some more details and it might get accepted when it talks about the tolerance specifically.

    ------------------------------
    Steven Shull
    ------------------------------

    Original Message