daniel thorowgood

Our clients on Sage 50 will expect the ability to integrate SBC Analysis Codes within external applications and invoices generated externally to be imported to SBC with the relevant Analysis Codes. Currently the API does not support this so makes SBC a very hard sell. I created another post about this previously but wanted to re-add in the General Discussion forum to re-highlight this short-coming and gauge other integrators views on this missing functionality and, hopefully, vote to include this in the SBC roadmap.

@Melanie Lisle Hi, any movement on this? Will be a significant limitation for integrations coming from Sage 50 base...and so potentially put Sage 50 clients off moving to cloud.

@Ben Smith any update on this thread?

@Ben Smith Thanks for the swift response. Previous UK / GB tax codes supply a string value for the "Code" / 'ID" (e.g. GB_Lower, GB_Exempt, GB_STandard etc.). Therefore, we coded our integration on the basis that the auto-managed tax rates in SBC will supply named codes ot GUIDs. The newly / recently introduced VAT rate for "Reduced Rate 2 UK" supply's a GUID as the code (as per original screenshot), which is a different data_type and also breaks the uniform naming convention. In our integration we concatenate "code + ' - ' + name" to provide a more user-friendly name in our UI. The introduction of GUID means our UI now displays a GUID to users, which is obviously sub-optimal. Ideally, we'd like you to update the underlying code / object on your side to follow the original convention, for example GB_REDUCED.

@Ben Smith as an administrator (sorry for picking on you!), could review this topic and provide some response?

The new Reduced Rate 2 tax code has been introduced recently but now using a GUID instead of the string value (e.g. GB_EXEMPT) as per previous VAT codes. This breaks our integration as some Tax Codes use string code naming convention and now the new one uses GUID (As per screenshot). This must be a mistake, right?! Can you please update so the new VAT rate uses a Code following the original naming convention? Or, move all to GUIDs so the construct is uniform and we can code against it effectively? Unless this is fixed we will have to code for this glaring inconistency.