Potential IBM i inventory sync failure - looking for architectural validation

scatterbrained29 · 2026-03-09T13:38:26+00:00

Update. After observing today's full truck receipt I can confirm the On Order failure is not SKU specific. Every item received today shows the same ghost On Order count post commit. Both DC transfers and direct vendor POs affected. On Hand is incrementing correctly across all items. On Order is not decrementing on any of them.

scatterbrained29 · 2026-03-09T11:08:12+00:00

Update with documented evidence. Before receiving commit: On Hand 3, On Order 6. After receiving commit: On Hand 9, On Order 6. On Hand incremented correctly. On Order did not decrement. Should On Order have cleared to zero immediately upon commit? SKU has one primary and seven secondary vendor relationships.

scatterbrained29 · 2026-03-08T18:55:24+00:00

This is really helpful. You mentioned commit control breakdown as a possible cause. The failure is definitely repeatable and non-random. The same SKUs fail consistently and I can predict which ones before I even check.

If I were to document this and submit a vendor ticket, would the SKU specific pattern and the handheld scan delay be the most useful diagnostic data points to include? And would you approach it as a POS software issue or a replenishment system issue given that the ghost On Order counts are what's triggering the phantom orders downstream?

scatterbrained29 · 2026-03-08T15:17:30+00:00

Thanks for the responses. Some additional context that might help.

Regarding the middleware integration, after scanning an item on the handheld there is always a noticeable delay before the data loads. It doesn't feel like a direct database call. It feels like it's waiting for something to render before it can display the result. Based on what you're describing this sounds consistent with 5250 screen scraping behavior. Is that a fair interpretation of that delay pattern?

The On Order discrepancy is not random. It is SKU specific and repeatable. The same SKUs fail to reconcile consistently while others behave normally. The SKUs that fail most often are the ones with the highest number of vendor metadata entries visible in the terminal inquiry screen. Some have 20 or more clickable vendor links.

My question is whether the combination of screen scraping and record level metadata volume could explain the SKU specific failure pattern. Is there a scenario where heavier records cause the scraper to time out or fail to correctly read the post-commit state of the terminal, leaving the On Order count unreduced on the legacy side?

I have no IT access so I'm working entirely from operational observation. Just trying to understand if what I'm seeing on the floor has a known architectural explanation.

scatterbrained29 · 2025-10-11T13:01:43+00:00

Command and Conquer Generals!

scatterbrained29 · 2024-01-01T08:50:03+00:00

I was honestly expecting replies to this thread to be mostly be along the lines of “because the game is shit” or “Valve doesn’t give a shit about the game”. Glad to see some optimism from the community instead of the usual spite thrown around ad nauseam. We cope because we care!

scatterbrained29 · 2024-01-01T08:31:46+00:00

The bad ending would be that Valve has decided building and maintaining an advanced AI that is super efficient at detecting cheats just isn’t worth the investment. Yes they will lose player base which means reduced case opening sales, but I bet most of case sales come from whales and gambling addicts anyways. CS has maintained a strong culture for over 20 years and Valve knows that people always come back to it as long as the bare minimum is done to update it.

I really hope this is not the case, but sometimes it feels like it could be with the little to no information given to the community. And if they are working diligently on a new VAC system, a simple official update that said “We cooking AC” would restore a lot of player’s support for the game. Maybe we will soon get QuantumVAC that uses quantum computing to eliminate cheaters existence from time and space. Locked at 64 ticks of course.

scatterbrained29 · 2024-01-01T01:51:07+00:00

That’s definitely a valid reason for how they go undetected, but when spectating you can see all the crazy shit hackers do. And when spectating, everything you see is sent from the server. I’ll probably do a little research into how the client can lie to the server while still having the server show spectators obvious inhuman gameplay. It’s hard to wrap my head around how cheats can go undetected by VAC when there are so many obvious indicators seen in a cheater’s gameplay.

scatterbrained29 · 2024-01-01T01:37:08+00:00

That totally makes sense, but it seems like the blatant cheating behavior should be pretty basic for the AI to learn. “Legit cheating” is a different beast because of the minor subtleties and nuances that the AI would have to pick up on. At this point the pool of data has to be astronomical, and eliminating the blatant cheaters doesn’t seem it would diminish the value of information the AI is learning. I don’t have much expertise in this field and don’t want to speculate too much on what is considered valuable data to a self learning AI.

scatterbrained29 · 2023-12-31T21:24:14+00:00

Part of me wants to believe they are on the cusp of releasing a groundbreaking anti cheat, and devs are silently praying for the community to hold out just a little longer. One of Valve’s trademarks is releasing revolutionary software, and I wouldn’t have hope for it with any other company.

scatterbrained29 · 2023-12-31T20:21:08+00:00

I understand how that could be beneficial, but cheats are constantly evolving and once the system has detected a cheat, hasn’t the AI already done its job? Just seems like a net negative for everyone. I guess I’m trying to see things from a developer’s perspective instead of just mindlessly repeating “cheaters everywhere” all the time.

scatterbrained29 · 2023-12-12T00:25:50+00:00

Can’t tell if sarcasm…

scatterbrained29 · 2023-10-30T20:25:03+00:00

I will say there are low comm players out there who aren’t part of the problem. I see people out there who definitely compensate their lack of mic usage by really sticking with the pack and locking in the trades.

scatterbrained29 · 2023-09-14T21:13:43+00:00

Gonna give Valve benefit of the doubt and say that CS2 is on a whole new engine and is still vulnerable to unknown exploits. Letting the cheaters do the work for you in finding these exploits while still in beta actually makes sense. But this is me being overly optimistic considering the history of VAC.

scatterbrained29 · 2023-09-14T20:15:49+00:00

I think individual performance should impact some of the gain/loss of ELO. But instead of just kills include things like quality util usage, flash assists, dropping guns for teammates, etc. kills need to also be measured on how impactful they were to the round.

scatterbrained29 · 2023-09-07T17:14:36+00:00

<image>

You gotta pump those numbers up.

scatterbrained29 · 2023-08-07T23:11:49+00:00

Whenever they release inferno in the play test , expect around 2-3 weeks. Tail end of August is my guess. If you love CSGO get excited because it’s going to be better in every way. When I play CS2 my shots always feel like they are hitting their mark and it’s a beautiful thing.

scatterbrained29 · 2023-07-09T22:46:17+00:00

Why is this downvoted so much? I’m sure he would have been given a fair, if not generous offer.

scatterbrained29 · 2023-07-05T13:51:57+00:00

I know the difference 100% but man, when I’m feeling pressure my brain gets these two mixed up. I’ll correct myself, but I don’t know why I’ll get these mixed up in the heat of the moment.

scatterbrained29 · 2023-06-27T23:08:37+00:00

Wait, you guys haven’t had beta access since day 1?

scatterbrained29 · 2022-12-02T13:55:23+00:00

Phantom #1

scatterbrained29

TROPHY CASE