You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Although we send the EU fundings separately en xml they appear on the the pdf concated. Moreover if we send a program more than once with different financing identifier it appears on the pdf only once. As a result we can't decide which ones (BT-722, BT-5011, BT-6110) belong to each other. We use SDK 1.11.1 (it works the same in SDK 1.7.2).
Is this an intened visualisation or is it a fault?
Could you please investigate the issue?
Thanks in advance!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thank you for your question. Unfortunately, this is a fault in EFX1 that cannot be fixed. This fault will be corrected in EFX2, but we do not have a date for when EFX2 will be released.
We noticed the following issue.
According to one contract we send 3 EU funds:
BT-722 Contract EU Funds Programme = 'AGR'
BT-5011 Contract EU Funds Financing Identifier = 'BT-5011 Contract EU Funds Financing Identifier /1'
BT-6110 Contract EU Funds Details = 'BT-6110 Contract EU Funds Details /1'
BT-722 Contract EU Funds Programme = 'AMIF'
BT-5011 Contract EU Funds Financing Identifier = 'BT-5011 Contract EU Funds Financing Identifier /2'
BT-6110 Contract EU Funds Details = 'BT-6110 Contract EU Funds Details /2'
BT-722 Contract EU Funds Programme = 'AGR'
BT-5011 Contract EU Funds Financing Identifier = 'BT-5011 Contract EU Funds Financing Identifier /3'
BT-6110 Contract EU Funds Details = 'BT-6110 Contract EU Funds Details /3'
In xml it looks like:
Although we send the EU fundings separately en xml they appear on the the pdf concated. Moreover if we send a program more than once with different financing identifier it appears on the pdf only once. As a result we can't decide which ones (BT-722, BT-5011, BT-6110) belong to each other. We use SDK 1.11.1 (it works the same in SDK 1.7.2).
Is this an intened visualisation or is it a fault?
Could you please investigate the issue?
Thanks in advance!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: