Thanks, Lurch, that’s useful, but it only works for purchase orders, not for purchase invoices. Also, it’s quite awkward to use on POs, as one needs to click on the search spyglass first, and then enter a search term… it’s much more intuitive and quick on the sales invoices where the search is automatic and within the Category column.
I agree that the current system is counter intuitive. Also in many cases a purchase order is redundant. Nothing that I do involves sending my own PO to a supplier. Physical purchases are normally made through the suppliers’ own web sites.
The lack of a quantity and price per item field on PIs is a trivial annoyance and for me there are far more important things for QF to work on but it is still a minus point, albeit a very tiny one.
Some of us use purchase orders daily with many different suppliers.
For anyone wanting this feature, click vote at the top of the page (left-hand side of the title)
Does anyone know what number of votes you have to reach so that changes can be made?
Also, i would have thought since the feature is already in existence in the sales section, it could easily be duplicated over to purchases?
The request was made more than 2 and half years ago and im sure more users could do with having this feature along with the item field in purchases.
The votes only play one part in deciding whether an idea is implemented. There are other factors, such as the technicality of the changes, which are also considered. But we do actively review topics with community interest.
As mentioned above, taking technicalities into account, it may not be as straight forward as adding another box for this to be supported. But when an idea is investigated further, our development team will be able to advise on the feasibility of this.
As with all changes, we’ll keep you posted.
Hi, any update on this please? don’t see many developments these days, and a quantity in purchase field would be a massive benefit.
cant see how a PO has the quantities, and then when converted to a PI, it then looses all the information
Is this even considered as a development?
There’s plenty of development on-going, although admittedly not all of it is visual. Some of it takes place behind the scenes to ensure QuickFile continues to run smoothly.
This request is still a request, there are no updates here. When it’s under consideration we’ll move it to the relevant category and update it here so everyone is aware of the situation.
I have just started looking at this package.
First transaction, input an invoice and I find there is no line quantity, a fundamental omission! We all purchase a quantity of an item!
Having found this thread which was started in 2017 without a resolution, do I throw the towel in and move onto another package?
Whilst I’m a big advocate of QuickFile, I do feel the inability to record a quantity on a purchase invoice does let the software down quite significantly.
If this hasn’t been done because it would mess up the way receipt tagging is done from within the receipt hub, why not only allow quantity input when the purchase invoice is entered manually from the “purchase detail” view?
Surely it’s about time this feature request thread was moved to be under consideration as a minimum?
Even if that is the case surely a default of “Qty 1” when tagged from the receipt hub would suffice.
Exactly my thoughts.
i have been asking for nearly 4 years now, and nothing changes]#
Missing quantities on purchases seems a very odd omission to me. I’ve recently started managing a quickfile account to free up other HR for business development and I’m playing the purchase order trick at the moment to track quantities (especially in mileage) but it’s a lot of extra steps. Please implement this as soon as there is developer time for it!
If you’re referring to mileage claims, these should be done using journals not purchases.
At the risk of getting off topic, that’s not what Business mileage expense advises.
Yeah the how to is to make it easy for people. It’s not technically correct. Specially more so if your vat registered as it would add the cost to the vat return when it’s out of scope.
Anyway let’s keep this thread on topic.