Source-derived document; reported behaviour, inference and evidence gaps are identified in the text.
Return to: 02 — Business Capability Map — topic detail
reporting and invoicing
In this document
Capability: reporting and invoicing
D4_Report contains evidence for mailing-label, accounts-receivable, and stock-related reporting options, while D4_Orders contains invoice generation. The print_labels journey uses a query-by-example interface to obtain a customer predicate and generates labels for the selected subset. The invoice journey combines customer details, order information, line items, and calculated totals, including tax and shipping. E0011 E0013
The backlog and stock-list report methods are not functional in the supplied implementation. D4_Report.print_backlog and D4_Report.print_stock display the same unimplemented-option error used by other stubs. The defensible conclusion is that the menu labels and options exist, not that backlog or stock-list generation is implemented. E0012
Invoice-related records combine order, item, stock, and manufacturer information. X_Invoice defines fields for order number and date, shipping instructions, backlog, purchase-order number, shipping date, shipping weight and charge, item number, stock number, manufacturer code and name, quantity, total price, description, unit price, unit, and unit description. The business rule for calculating shipping weight and shipping charge is not visible in the supplied evidence. E0013
Report lifecycle ordering depends on unavailable framework behavior. The label, accounts-receivable, and invoice paths start a report before iterating result sets and passing rows to output routines, then finish the report after row processing. This may be valid if the report framework buffers output and execute performs final emission, but the implementations of Report.start, Report.execute, and related routines are absent. Correct output ordering is therefore not independently confirmed. E0012
Harten documentation of the Informix 4GL and Java source repository, from the retained 17 October 2026 export. The exact upstream revision analysed is not established. Source findings do not establish runtime behaviour or equivalence between the implementations.
Evidence identifiers are retained for traceability. The underlying analysis records are not included in this public edition; credential values are redacted. About this case study.