|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00174524
|
Issue: In Salesforce Lightning, the Update Counters action on Installed Product records appeared with the same styling as in Classic. This caused a mismatch in visual consistency, as the button did not reflect the Lightning theme’s design standards.
Resolution: In Salesforce Lightning org, the Update Counters action on an Installed Product now opens in the Lightning UI when capturing a counter reading. On the Salesforce Classic page, the screen continues to display in the Classic theme.
For more information, see Capturing Counter Reading.
|
September 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00175698
|
Issue: Technicians were able to save a SFM transaction even when the configuration Allow user to save empty section? was set to Disallow and Allow New for the child line was disabled. The system did not display the expected error and allowed saving empty sections.
Resolution: The system has been updated to apply the setting Allow user to save empty section? independently of the Allow New configuration for child lines.
With this update, if users attempt to save a transaction without any lines, the system blocks the save and displays an error message, ensuring that empty sections cannot be saved.
For more information, see General Properties within Related Object Sections
|
September 2025 Patch
|
|
00170818
|
When users created a newService Contract, the system did not clear the error message returned by the previously triggered web service. When users clickedSaveagain, the system created duplicate records instead of redirecting to the Service/Maintenance Contracts list page.
|
June 2025 Patch
|
|
00164249
|
When users navigated to other fields using theTabkey in the Estimate Child Work Order SFM, the values they entered in theEstimated Price Per UnitandEstimated Qtyfields intermittently disappeared.
|
June 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
NA
|
Automated AI Actions through Service Flow Automation (SFA) allows AI-driven actions, such as Summarize Work Order, to be triggered automatically based on SFA configuration during record creation or update. The output of these AI actions is stored in a designated field, such as a custom Work Order Summary field, making it easy for users to access and review the generated summaries. For more information, see Configuring Automated AI Actions in Service Flow Automation.
|
September 2025 Patch
|
||
|
NA
|
Automated AI Actions through Service Flow Automation (SFA) allows AI-driven actions, such as Summarize Work Order, to be triggered automatically based on SFA configuration during record creation or update. The output of these AI actions is stored in a designated field, such as a custom Work Order Summary field, making it easy for users to access and review the generated summaries. For more information, see Configuring Automated AI Actions in Service Flow Automation.
|
August 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00173963
|
Issue: Previously, users could not launch standard Salesforce record pages (such as Account or Location) with pre-defined field values through a Custom Action URL. Users manually entered information, which increased effort and led to inconsistencies across records.
Resolution: Administrators can now configure a Custom Action URL to launch standard Salesforce record page with pre-defined field values. In the Custom Action configuration, admins must append “?defaultFieldValues=” to the record page URL and define field parameters. This automatically populates default values for new records, reducing manual data entry and ensuring consistency.
For more information, see Custom Action to Launch Record with Default Values.
|
August 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
00172926
|
Issue: Previously, the SFM Delivery engine blocked creating duplicate records, even when the Salesforce Duplicate Rule was set to warn and allow save.
Resolution: The SFM Lightning Delivery now enforces Salesforce Duplicate Rules for SFM header records. To enable this, set SET013 (Module: SFM Transaction Manager; Submodule: SFM Transaction Delivery Engine) to True. When this setting is enabled and a duplicate is detected, the SFM Delivery Engine displays an error message. On clicking Save again, the record is saved if the rule is set as a warning. If it is a blocking error, the same error message is shown and the record is not saved.
For more information, see Salesforce Duplication Rules in SFM Lightning Delivery.
|
August 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00170983
|
Issue: Previously, in the Manage Work Order Lines – Usage SFM, labor and parts prices did not populate from the selected price book when users clicked the Get Price button. This occurred when users changed the Parts Pricebook or Labor Pricebook on the SFM layout. The updated prices appeared only after clicking the Get Price a second time. This led to inaccurate price calculation and delayed work order completion.
Resolution: The pricing engine now reads the latest Parts and Labor Pricebook values from the Work Order’s price book fields on the SFM layout when the user performs the Get Price action. If the fields are not available, the engine fetches the last saved price book values from the Work Order record.
For more information, see Initiating Price Calculation.
|
August 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00174734
|
Issue: Previously, deleting a covered product from a Service Contract did not clear Service Contract Name, Service Contract Line, Contract Start Date, and Contract End Date fields from the Installed Product record. As a result, the Installed Product displayed outdated contract details.
Resolution: Administrators can set the global setting GBL014 to automatically clear the Service Contract Name, Service Contract Line, Contract Start Date, and Contract End Date fields from the Installed Product record when the covered product is removed from the Service Contract.
This keeps the Installed Product record accurate and helps users avoid confusion from outdated contract details.
For more information, see Deleting Products from a Service/Maintenance Contract.
|
August 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
NA
|
Administrators can now add images for parts or products, which are displayed in the replacement modal. This provides end users with a visual reference when selecting replacement parts, helping to improve accuracy and streamline the replacement process.
|
August 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
NA
|
Issue: Users could not easily identify the correct Service Contract or Warranty if multiple matches were returned during interactive entitlement from a Work Order.The Contract or Warranty name displayed only a unique number, which forced users to manually open each record to view its details.
Resolution: In Salesforce Setup, users can now configure additional display columns using Field Sets for the Product Warranty and Service/Maintenance Contract objects. The Field Sets are included in the core package. Any fields added to the Field Sets appear as additional columns on the Entitlement Selection page for both Product Warranty and Service Contract records. This allows users to view key details and choose the right coverage during entitlement selection.
For more information, see Configuring Additional Display Columns in the Interactive Entitlement UI.
|
July 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00177239
|
• Issue: Migration of Wizards that included DataGuide Forms or Document Templates as Wizard Steps was blocked due to published Form version checks. Admins had to manually increase the Form version in the source org, causing delays and unnecessary version increments.
• Resolution: Users can now migrate Wizards that include DataGuide Forms or Document Templates as Wizard Steps. During migration:
◦ If the linked Form or Document Template exists in the target org, the Wizard Step is migrated without overwriting the DataGuide Forms or Document Templates.
◦ If it does not exist, the DataGuide Form or Document Template is migrated along with the Wizard Step after the required DataGuide validations.
Also, the Migration tool now supports migrating a Form with up to six dependent Document Templates through Form Action.
For more information, see DataGuide Validations.
|
November 2025 Patch
|
|
NA
|
Issue: Previously, the associated template Actions were not migrated during the migration of a DataGuide Document Template. Users manually created the Template Actions on the Document Template after the migration.
Resolution: The DataGuide Document template actions are now migrated along with the Document Template. If the document template is overwritten on the target system, its corresponding document template actions will also be overwritten during the migration process.
For more information, see DataGuide Configurations.
|
July 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00178274
|
The system allowed the user to save a wizard with a duplicate ID in Lightning UI. After the user created a wizard with an ID already used for wizards in other objects, the system did not display any validation error and allowed the duplicate to be saved.
|
November 2025 Patch
|
|
00178183
|
The script added in the new Output Document Editor disappeared after the admin clicked the Save button in the output document template.
|
October 2025 Patch
|
|
00174390
|
The PDF generation error occurred when the user switched from the old editor to the new editor and tried to generate the output document. This issue occurred because the Script tag was not supported by default in the new editor.
|
August 2025 Patch
|
|
00162836
|
A confirmation message configured for a Custom Action Wizard step appeared as expected, but the custom action flow did not launch after the user clicked OK.
|
July 2025 Patch
|
|
00169861
|
A blank error toast was displayed when the user tried to save an SFM transaction.
|
June 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00131654
|
The changes made to qualification criteria or SFM expressions in the SFM Transaction Designer were not applied immediately. Cached data still appeared in the areas where the expressions were used.
|
October 2025 Patch
|
|
00173673
|
The output PDF displayed an unwanted 'undefined' string for child line details.
Recommendation: It is recommended to update the document template expression to include a null check, ensuring missing labor details are handled properly and 'undefined' does not appear in the generated report.
|
August 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
00172065
|
The maximum view state size limit error occurred when the user tried to update an inventory process.
|
October 2025 Patch
|
||
|
00175403
|
An error occurred when a user tried to access the custom inventory process in the New React Inventory Processing page, indicating that duplicate fields were found.
|
September 2025 Patch
|
||
|
00170590
|
An error occurred when the user launched an inventory process in React UI.
Recommendation: It is recommended to resave the Inventory Process in ServiceMax Setup if it encounters a runtime error.
|
July 2025 Patch
|
||
|
00172065
|
The maximum view state size limit error occurred when the user tried to update an inventory process.
|
July 2025 Patch
|
||
|
00171619
|
During partial closure of a Parts Order in an inventory process, the new open Parts Order Lines that were created did not have data copied from the completed Parts Order Line.
|
June 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00175604
|
The Apex size limit error occurred when the user launched Manage Service team SFM.
|
October 2025 Patch
|
|
00169166
|
When the user clicked theReturn PartsSFM on a Stocking Location, the screen failed to load and no data appeared.
|
June 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00176349
|
The collection size limit error occurred when the user tried to modify a PM Process.
|
October 2025 Patch
|
|
00175283
|
The user was unable to view and clone an expression in theCriteriasection of a PM Process.
|
August 2025 Patch
|
|
00175464
|
The PM Process engine failed to process all PM Plans in a batch if one PM Plan failed. The error summary logs lacked specific details, so admins could not troubleshoot PM Plans and Schedules.
|
August 2025 Patch
|
|
00175398
|
An error occurred when the user tried to save a new PM Process.
|
August 2025 Patch
|
|
00174571
|
An error occurred and the page did not load when the user tried to view the list of PM processes.
|
July 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00176133,
00168166
|
For the weekly timesheet configuration, the Scheduler created the Timesheet Header for the upcoming week a day later than the configured date.
|
October 2025 Patch
June 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00177554
|
The XML data was appended with extra spaces on each line of the document during the migration of the DataGuide Document Template.
|
November 2025 Patch
|
|
00175105
|
The migration tool failed to migrate a DataGuide Document Template due to unresolved image references.
|
October 2025 Patch
|
|
00167411
|
The Migration Tool failed to create field mapping records for some mappings in the target org during the export/import of multiple SFMs.
SFM import validation in the ServiceMax Migration Tool incorrectly reported standard ServiceMax fields as missing, even though they were present in the target org.
|
July 2025 Patch,
November 2025 Patch
|
|
00170896
|
When the customer license type was changed from Rapid to Enterprise, the Expression Detail records specific to the Rapid License were deleted.
|
June 2025 Patch
|
|
00172644
|
TheShow as Rich Text (web only)toggle button was not enabled for the Rich Text field in the target org after the migration via the Migration Tool.
|
June 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00177405
|
The English (Japan) and English (Korea) locales did not appear when locale picklist is accessed via SFM.
|
November 2025 Patch
|
|
00177286
|
The application displayed a required field validation error as expected when users tried to save or quick save an SFM record without entering a value in the Response Description (Rich Text Field). However, after users entered a value in the field, the error message continued to appear and prevented the record from being saved.
|
October 2025 Patch
|
|
00177231
|
The field background initially appeared greyed out as expected when users opened an SFM record that contained a read-only field. However, after users performed a Save or Quick Save action that resulted in a DVR validation error, the background colour of the read-only field changed to white. This issue occurred for both header and child section fields across SFMs in Salesforce Classic and Lightning.
|
October 2025 Patch
|
|
00174520
|
In certain European time zones, the DATEVALUE function returned incorrect dates in Work Order line items during daylight saving time transitions.
|
September 2025 Patch
|
|
00169958
|
The Web Service error message did not appear when a new lookup value was fetched and selected through a modal popup before the Webs Service call. The issue was caused by the Lookup UI, which suppressed the error message.
|
July 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
00178280,
00179453
|
After upgrading to version 25.1, the Auto Entitlement process did not work as expected. The application continued to apply service contracts based on product, product family, or product line—even when the entitlement rule setting “Should product, product family, and product line (in that order) be included in Entitlement Check for Service Contracts” was set to No.
|
October 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00176812
|
The sequence values of formulas were not migrated during the migration of an SFM Transaction using the CLI tool.
|
September 2025 Patch
|
|
00174131
|
Duplicate code snippets were created in the target org during SFM deployment via the CLI tool.
|
July 2025 Patch
|
|
00173274
|
A limit error occurred during transaction retrieval via the SF command plugin.
|
July 2025 Patch
|
|
00172215,
00172411
|
The Wizard was duplicated in the Wizard layout in the target org after the CLI deployment in Salesforce Classic.
|
June 2025 Patch
|
|
00170290
|
The multi-source SFM was not linked to the SFM when it was migrated via the global deploy command.
|
June 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00174163,
00170896
|
When the customer license type changed from Rapid to Enterprise, the Expression Detail records specific to the Rapid License were deleted and Sync Gateway failed to complete sync.
|
August 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00173863
|
Installed Product fields were incorrectly updated when new covered products were created. All installed products were linked to the same contract and covered product instead of their respective ones.
|
August 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00166869
|
The SLA clock did not stop running until the page was refreshed when the user initiated the Remote Service SFM from a work order in the ServiceMax Console app.
|
July 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00173133
|
A component error occurred when the user tried to reorder work plans using the Move Up or Move Down option in the General Tasks tab of a Work Order.
|
July 2025 Patch
|
|
00173577
|
The user could not add Work Plans to a Work Order as the Add Work Plans button was not available. This occurred due to permission issues.
|
July 2025 Patch
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00177261
|
The Core Technical Attributes LWC did not show the updates until the page was refreshed when the user saved the changes using the Save or Save Updates Only buttons.
|
Core 25R2
|
|
00177696
|
The Core Technical Attributes LWC allowed the user to save the Technical Attributes on the Work Order even when the required fields were not provided.
|
Core 25R2
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00175880,
00177145,
00177899,
00177653,
00175954,
00169112
|
The Dispatch Console displayed incorrect week numbering at the start of 2026. Week 53 of 2025 appeared as December 29 2025 – January 4 2026, while Week 1 of 2026 was incorrectly shown as January 5 – 11 2026. This misalignment caused scheduling, reporting, and planning inconsistencies across the Dispatch Console view.
The issue occurred due to a limitation in the new library used by the Dispatch Console calendar, which calculated week numbers incorrectly for years with 53 weeks.
|
Core 25R2
|
|
Case Number
|
Description
|
Fixed Version
|
|---|---|---|
|
00168564
|
The Salesforce governor limit error occurred when the user tried to edit the mobile configuration for a profile.
|
June 2025 Patch
|