BP Relationship Restrictions
Hi Gurus
We are working on CRM 2007 and we want to be able to restrict the type of Relationships a user can link up to a BP.
E.g. A Regular BP (or Individual Account) can have the following relationships: Primary Card
Secondary Card
Has Payer
A Group can have the following relationships: Primary Card
Is Payer
A Corporate Account can have the following relationships: Primary Card
Is Payer
Has Contact
Is it possible that this can be catered for with standard configuration?
If not what are my options.
Many Thanks in advance
Panduranga
Options
1. Hide the Business Partner Relationship Categories
SPRO -> Cross Application Component -> SAP Business Partner -> Business partner Rel. -> Basic Settings -> Properties of BP Rel. Categories
There is check against each Relationship Categories as hide which you can check .
Be aware that is a system wide change so this Relationship category will not be available in any Transaction ( BP ) etc.
2. If you want to control the availability of the BP Rel. Category for a specific Process/Project/App i would suggest , implement the Restriction at the Presentation Layer i.e Web UI in the Controller of the Corresponding BSP Component.
Similar Messages
-
Quality Center Adapter - Connecting Multiple Solution Manager Systems
We are running Solution Manager 7/Enhp 1 and Quality Center 10 successfully using the Quality Center Adapter integration. My question is, can we connect multiple Solution Manager systems (i.e. SMP/SMS/SMX) to a single Quality Center server simultaneously? Or is there a one-to-one relationship restriction. Thanks.
I have answered this question in this post below:
http://forums.sdn.sap.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2110531&messageID=10962875#10962875
To quote myself
Each tie up is based on the logical ports at the Solution Manager end and the relationship between the two entities is between Projects. So if you set up the configuration like you would in a normal scenario and at the right moment, connect the projects in SolMans to the corresponding projects in HPQC, you should be fine.
Hope that helps. -
Restrict copying all data to relationship while maintaing Contact Person.
Currently when maintaining the relationship of Contact Person to a Customer Account, Web UI automatically copies all communication data (phone, fax, email etc...) to the relationship.
I need to know, specifically, how we can restrict data copy/transfer to only Business Phone Number and Business Fax number only. upon relationship creation.
What are we restricting and what BAPI or code is being restricted?
Please be specific.
Thanks,
FKi see this so much on this site, users just posting solved and not giving details on how they fixed the problem, the SDN is meant to be for sharing!!
If you find a fix, share it or don't bother being a part of the SDN community.(so annoying) -
Trying to restrict access to Business Partners Roles and Relationships
In CRM 7.0 I am trying to restict access to creating and maintaining certain Business Partner Roles and Relationships. Some roles and relationships are brought over from our primary R/3 system and users are not allowed to change these. However, certain Roles and Relationships exist only in CRM and should be allowed. I am working with the authorization objects B_BUPA_RLT and B_BUPA_BZT. The only field that seems to be checked is the Activity. Even when I put limited BP Roles it seems that this field is not being verified. My security trace returns the following: B_BUPA_RLT ACTVT=02;RLTYP= ;
Authorization object B_BUPA_RLT as used in SAP GUI can't be used in CRM WebClientUI. In SAPGUI business partners always need to be maintained in a bp role regardless of the update-characteristic of this bp role. As there's no authorization-object to control maintenance of bp in general, auth. object B_BUPA_RLT also was used to restrict visibility of bp (data). The creation of a bp is controlled by assigning authorizations for the maintenance of bp roles. If i.e. no authorization for any bp role is available, the user can't create a bp at all. Authorization object CRM_BPROLE is in CRM WebClient UI used instead of authorization object B_BUPA_RLT.
For more info about this see the following notes:
1129682 - Authorization for BP roles in CRM5.2 WebClient UI.
1259940 - Authority check for accounts depending on roles
regards. -
Account search F4 Help from BP Relationship page restricts the search
Hi ,
Account search F4 Help from BP Relationship page restricts the search to corporate accounts.
The business partner category maintained for the relationship type in Tcode buba is organization and person.But the search is restricted to corporate accounts only.
Thanks & Regards,
SanilaHi Shobhi,
Can you provide some more details about the system ?
Are you using transaction BP or CRM Web UI ? Also, which BBPCRM SP are you on ?
This problem does not exist in higer SPs of CRM, and a related problem existed in Web UI that the F4 search did not consider the role based customizing. This has been corrected in SAP note 1297760.
My guess is that everything is working fine in your system. Probably, you have also maintained some role based restrictions in BUBA customizing. Now, possibly, the allowed roles are only valid for corporate accounts, that's why you only see organizations in the search.
E.g : say u have a relationship category ZBUP03 - Employee rel
Now, you have a role restriction that partner 2 must be only role BUP003 = employee.
Now, according to role customizing, employee can only be person.
Thus, when you search for BP's to assign to rel category ZBUP03, you will only see persons.
Probably, this is the scenario in your system.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Rishu. -
Problem with Foreign Key relationships in SAP R/3 4.7
Hi Experts,
I am trying to create a foreign key relationship between 2 transparent tables in SAP R/3 4.7
Table 1:ZAAVNDR (MANDT (pk), VENDORNO (pk), NAME, REGION, COUNTRY (fk)) Foreign Key Table
Table 2: ZAAVNDRREF(MANDT(pk), COUNTRY (pk)) ---Check table
I have added few valid countries in check table but when I am adding some records in foreign key table with invalid countries these records are not being restricted and are still successfully going into the table.
Could any one please help in this.
Thanks in anticipation.
-AmitHi Sandra,
Many thanks for your response and providing time of yours.
Now, I have done exactly the same thing, but still it is the same.
I have created two new tables as below:
ZAAVREF (Check table)
MANDT (PK)
COUNTRY (PK) Domain:ZAACOUNT (CHAR 10)
ZAAV1 (Foreign key table)
MANDT (PK)
COUNTRY (PK) Domain:ZAACOUNT (CHAR 10)
Then I have created FK on country of foreign key table ZAAV1 and then SE16 (for table ZAAVREF)->Create Entries-> Entered values for Country only->Save....Records entered with valid Country values.
After that SE16 (for table ZAAV1)->Create Entries-->Entered an Invalid country->Save->Still the record entered to the Database successfully....
Could you please let me know where I am going wrong.
I am using SAP R/3 4.7 and creating tables using Tools->ABAP Workbench->Development->ABAP dictionary -
Best Practice to implement row restriction level
Hi guys,
We need to implement a security row filter scenario in our reporting system. Following several recommendations already posted in the forum we have created a security table with the following columns
userName Object Id
U1 A
U2 B
where our fact table is something like that
Object Id Fact A
A 23
B 4
Additionally we have created row restriction on the universe based on the following where clause:
UserName = @Variable('BOUSER')
If the report only contains objects based on Fact table the restriction is never applied. This has sense as docs specify that the row restrictions are only applied if the table is actually invoked in the SQL statement (SELECT statment is supposed).
Question is the following: Which is the best practice recommended in this situation. Create a dummy column in the security table, map into it into the universe and include the object in the query?
Thanks
Edited by: Alfons Gonzalez on Mar 8, 2012 5:33 PMHi,
This solution also seemed to be the most suitable for us. Problem that we have discover: when the restriction set is not applied for a given user (the advantage of using restriction set is the fact that is not always applied) the query joins the fact table with the security table withou applying any where clause based on @variable('USER'). This is not a problem if the secuity table contains a 1:1 relationship betwwen users and secured objects , but (as in our case) relathion ship is 1:n query provide "additional wrong rows".
By the moment we have discarded the use of the restriction sets. The effect of putting a dummy column based on the security table may have undesired effects when the condition is not applied.
I don't know if anyone has found how to workaround this matter.
Alfons -
Characteristic Relationship in IP
Hi All,
I have a database table(SE11) which has 4 fields (3 key fields + 1 Data Field). I want to derive the 4th field based on the other 3 key fields in my IP. For that I need to write a Characteristics Relationship exit.
my query is where do i need to write the code for the exit.
please explain in detail by giving step by step method. I would really appreciate if anyone could send me some sample code for the same.
Thanks in Advance.
Deepak SinghDear Deepti.
Unfortunatelly , I think I can not do this by filtering characterisitics in input query.
The issue is that to simplify my problem I omitted that I have another characterisitc called ACCOUNT.
So for planning layout at employee level is alway set to value 0001, but for planning at Area level we have more values, so this means that in the second layout, for Account value 0001 , only those areas whcih are plannble in level2 should be close and any other should be open.
Foe example:
Planning at Area, Employee: (ACCOUNT is always = 0001)
PROD; EMPLOYEE1 ; Employee Ratio(not input ready)
PROD; EMPLOYEE2; Employee Ratio((not input ready)
SELL; EMPLOYEE1; Employee Ratio
SELL; EMPLOYEE2; Employee Ratio
Planning at Area:
0001 0002 0003 0004
PROD planable planable planable planable
SELL NOT planable planable planable planable
ROOT planable planable planable planable
If I restrict SELL area in imput query, then I can not plan for other Accounts.
Thanks a lot. -
BI IP-Characteristic Relationship- invalid combinations are shown
Dear all,
we need to create a query ready for input but we need to avoid that the invalid combinations of two characteristic on wors are shown.
In fact the system presents the inconsistent combination as not editable.
Could you please suggest how to avoid this?
Many thanks in advance for help!
StefaniaHi
the link is ueseful, but I try to explane what we really need.
We have in the level two chars (ZC1 and ZC2; ZC2 is attribute of ZC1) and here you can see the values
ZC1 ZC2
PREVAI AI
GUASAI AI
PREVBT BT
GUASBT BT
The requiremet is that the user can plan by ZC1 and ZC2, but that he has a total row by ZC2 (not editable).
That's why I defined a structure on the rows with restrictions for ZC1 and ZC2, according to the master data relationship, and put the structure on the rows.
I defined a hierarchy for ZC1 where nodes are values of char ZC2 and I set this in the characteristic relationship for the provider. here is the hierarchy.
AI
PREVAI
GUASAI
BT
PREVBT
GUASBT
The result is that in the best option I see in the query invalid combinations such as BT PREVAI.
Any suggestion? -
I am using a characteristic relationship (without derivation) on Employee for Cost Center.
I have a cube that contains Key figures for each period for each planned cost center (with employee = #). I am wanting to copy these key figures to the employees within each cost center.
ex:
CC Plan Hrs
1238 155
2345 200
3425 175
I have employee 10134 (CC = 1238)
I am wanting to use ONE copy function to copy all key figures changing Employee:
Employee = # to Employee = 10134
I was hoping setting the Characteristic relationship would only copy the plan hours according to Master Cost Center (155 hours to 10134, etc). Instead, it will fail stating
"Combination '10134,DEL/2345' is invalid; Valid is '10134,DEL/1238': Characteristic 0EMPLOYEE'".
How can I set this characteristic relationship to only allow the copy to employees within the cost center without having it fail? I do not want to allow this function to copy the KF for CC 3425 to employees within another cost center.
Thanks!Hi,
it seems that you have combinations employee = #, CC = DEL/2345 in your copy source, the system then tries to copy such combinations to '10134,DEL/2345' and this combination is not valid. This will only happen in the special case that you have employee = # as copy source and 10134 as target and employee is the only field to be changed, i.e. source and target have only single value selections.
You can work around this effect as follows: allow more more values in the target for employee or by adding CC to the fields to be changed (if this characteristic is not restricted to a single value in the filter used in the planning function).
Another option is to decomment the following lines in class CL_RSPLFC_COPY, method IF_RSPLFA_SRVTYPE_IMP_EXEC_REF~EXECUTE
ELSE.
.... restriction to single values => check the combination (much faster)
MOVE-CORRESPONDING <s_block_line> TO <s_chas>.
LOOP AT l_s_rule-t_to_sel INTO l_s_sel.
ASSIGN COMPONENT l_s_sel-chanm OF STRUCTURE <s_chas> TO <cha>.
precondition: l_s_sel-t_rng contains just one line with sign = 'I' and opt = 'Eq'
LOOP AT l_s_sel-t_rng INTO l_s_rng.
<cha> = l_s_rng-low.
EXIT.
ENDLOOP.
ENDLOOP.
cl_rsplfr_controller=>p_r_cr_controller->check( EXPORTING i_s_chas = <s_chas>
IMPORTING e_t_mesg = l_t_contr_msg
e_is_valid = l_is_valid ).
IF l_is_valid = abap_false.
continue. "<== insert
create context without real message
me->msg_with_context( EXPORTING i_r_msg_src = l_r_msg "<== begin of change
i_s_rule = l_s_rule
CHANGING c_r_msg_trgt = l_r_i_msg ).
LOOP AT l_t_contr_msg INTO l_s_contr_msg.
MESSAGE ID l_s_contr_msg-msgid TYPE 'E' NUMBER l_s_contr_msg-msgno
WITH l_s_contr_msg-msgv1 l_s_contr_msg-msgv2
l_s_contr_msg-msgv3 l_s_contr_msg-msgv4
INTO l_dummy.
l_r_i_msg->add_msg( ).
ENDLOOP.
RETURN. " all messages are error. => planning function stops. "<== end of change
ENDIF.
Regards,
Gregor -
Confirmation of activity (restriction by system)
dear gurus,
kindly tell how can i restrict confirmation of successor activity. Example in my Network structure diagram their is only one netwrok and three internal activities and relationship is finish start for all three activity.
1. activity ===>fs===> 2.activity ===>fs ===> 3.activity
As all can see the flow, i want is when i confirm activity 2 or 3 without confirming activty 1 the system should not confirm the successor activities.
kindly help its urgent
saqib usmanHi,
Please use Tcode :SMOD
Use: Enhance ment as CONFPS02.
I never tried it still, the
help is pasted below for your quick referal.
Thanks.
Please reward if helpful.
CONFPS02 PS confirmation: Customer-specific input checks 1
The enhancement CONFPS02 contains the following components:
Function exit:
EXIT_SAPLCORF_007 PS confirmation: Customer-specific input check without changes
You can use this enhancement to subject the confirmation to your own checks, after the SAP standard checks have run. The confirmation can no longer be changed.
As well as the activity (AFVGD), the complete network header (CAUFVD) and the confirmation (AFRVD) are transfered in the interface.
Activities
1. Create the enhancement
Either create a new project or use an existing project.
2. Activate the project.
Your enhancement can only take effect after you have activated the project.
Further notes
Enhancements are, in contrast to modifications, release-insensitive, since they are not in the original SAP system, but in a name range that is reserved for customers.
You can find information about the general procedure for creating enhancements by choosing Utilities -> Documentation -> Onlinemanual -
Identify the relationship for the follwing fields
Hi experts,
I have to develop a report which is taking input as : -
1.matnr (material number)
2.werks (plant)
3.stlan (BOM usage)
4. stlal (alternative)
And I need the output as : -
AENNR (ECR : engg change request)
I am unable to identify the relationships between these fields, plz suggest me the best ways to do this..
Thanks in advance
Gaurav
Moderator message : Spec-dumping not allowed. Read forum rules before posting. Thread locked.
Edited by: Vinod Kumar on Jul 5, 2011 2:11 PMafter getting the records to internal table write the statement
delete adjacent duplicate ................... before that write sort stament also......
Deleting Adjacent Duplicate Entries
To delete adjacent duplicate entries use the following statement:
DELETE ADJACENT DUPLICATE ENTRIES FROM <itab>
[COMPARING <f1> <f 2> ...
|ALL FIELDS].
The system deletes all adjacent duplicate entries from the internal table <itab>. Entries are duplicate if they fulfill one of the following compare criteria:
Without the COMPARING addition, the contents of the key fields of the table must be identical in both lines.
If you use the addition COMPARING <f1> <f 2> ... the contents of the specified fields <f 1 > <f 2 > ... must be identical in both lines. You can also specify a field <f i > dynamically as the contents of a field <n i > in the form (<n i >). If <n i > is empty when the statement is executed, it is ignored. You can restrict the search to partial fields by specifying offset and length.
If you use the addition COMPARING ALL FIELDS the contents of all fields of both lines must be identical.
You can use this statement to delete all duplicate entries from an internal table if the table is sorted by the specified compare criterion.
If at least one line is deleted, the system sets SY-SUBRC to 0, otherwise to 4. -
Additional data on relationship between two objects
Hi
We have a requirement to capture additional data on a relationship between two objects. The data to be captured are custom fields that are unique to the relationship between the objects and not specific to either of the objects.
We created a new object type and related it to the position (S)and the job (C) object. In the customising (Personnel Management/Personnel Development/Basic Settings/Maintain Relationships there is an option to set up Additional Data. There are however several restrictions (e.g. the substructure has to be in T77AD). When you set up an existing substructure (e.g. PAD22) and screen (e.g. 3000), it works really well, however we have not been able to get this to read our own substructure and screen (since there is no customer include on HRP1001 and the 'Additional data' button seems to go to MP100100 to find the screen).
My question is two fold:
a) Is this an allowed customisation (e.g. can we create our own substructure, screen and Query string)? And if so, how does the data get into T77AD (since SAP recommends that data should not be added to this table)? and
b) Is there any documentation on this (thus far I have only received info on how to enhance infotypes which I don't think is relevant???)?
If this can not be maintained is there any other suggestions on how to deal with this scenario?
Any assistance will be appreciated.
Regards
LiezlHi everyone
Thanks for everyone who tried to assist us with this. I am happy to report that our in-house guru's have found the answer. So, for anyone who is interested:
In programme MP100100 you have a screen 6000 which is a customer enhancements screen. We set up two in-house function modules for the PBO and PAI with its own screen and added an append structure to PAD31 to add the fields required. In the configuration, we then specified PAD31 as the substructure with screen 6000 and then also specified our own PBO and PAI function modules. The parameters required for screen 6000 is set up within our own customer screens.
Hope this will be helpful to someone - it certainly seemed to open up some doors for us!
Regards
Liezl -
Restrictions Really needs improvement for Business use
Hi
We have written an app and are replacing our industry standard barcode scanning devices with over 100 iPod Touches worldwide using a third party barcode sled accessory. This is much cheaper (Around $800 vs $1500) and offers a much richer and less confusing user interface to the end-user. However our end-users are often low paid seasonal workers employed by our clients, so when it comes to the restriction settings in iOS we try to lock the devices down as much as possible.
I think more and more people are treating the iPod/iPhone/iPad in commerical environments and so the ability to secure and maintain these devices really needs to be improved. Our situation aside you can use your iPhone as a point of sale with a credit card swipe, if you have a retail chain with several of these devices for use by employees you don't want them to be messing around on them or making choices that you don't want them to purposfully or accidently.
For instance:
iOS6 upgrade seems to download automatically and prompt the user if they want to install. There is no way to turn updates off, and not even a password is required to do it. In my scenario if someone gets the upgrade push and then clicks ok they then can't work for 30 minutes, not good if there is a long line of people waiting to be served.
WiFi/VPN connections can be changed
Passcode lock can be turned on/off/changed
Date/Time / Keyboard / International / Accessibility settings can all be played with
Weather app always available
Stocks app always available
Maps can be used (location can be disabled at least!)
etc..
If I (as a developer) tell our deployment manager to tell our client's manager to tell their scanning manager to tell their temporary workers to not mess around with things like the above....someones not going to listen, and our IT department is just going to have to check each device and clean up.
I know that apple's portable devices are aimed more at consumers, but I personlly think it's about time that we have some more attention to more business scenarios.
I don't want to come accross negative so i'll finish by saying that a lot of the restrictions in place are very useful. Being able to disable the store, iTunes and safari are very big wins, without those we wouldn't have switched to iOS devices.
Anyone else have a similar need for more administrative ability?
Thanks for reading.One of these might be good for a POS (assuming you need touch screen), but those are terrible for graphic artists to use. All-in-ones are to be put bluntly, over-priced pieces of junk with crappy power supplies and worthless integrated video cards. They will run too hot most likely and need maintenance more often than larger well-ventilated desktop towers. Your graphic artists staff will hate the small low resolution monitors as well as the lack of decent GPU acceleration. The only good thing about them is the small form factor, a sacrifice well worth looking past IMHO.
Graphic artists should be using high-end monitors, IPS panels for accurate colors and high resolution displays of 2560x1600 pixels. I strongly recommend looking at Dell's Ultra Sharp models (particularly the 30"). If you end up getting three Dell Ultra Sharps then you might as well get the whole system from them as well and develop some sort of professional relationship and support system like most businesses.
*The monitor should be the most expensive component by far and it is the most important for work productivity, do not skimp out here, you run a graphic design firm after all!
Look for reasonably priced desktops with 4-8GB RAM, Intel or AMD quad core processors. Stay away from discrete graphics, Photoshop uses GPU acceleration found on higher end video cards and it is useful. Larger hard drives perform better than smaller ones because of areal density, so buy larger hard drives than needed (1-2TB drives with 500GB or larger platters) and run them in RAID1 for redundancy, because I doubt you have a storage area network. -
Restrict Contact Person replication from CRM to ECC based on Partner Funct
Hi Experts
We are replicating Contacts from CRM to ECC, by assigning them to Accounts. We have a scenario to restrict Contact Person replication to ECC only for specific Partner functions (we have 5 such partner functions), for remaining partner functions the contact Persons should not be replicated to ECC.
By Partner function I mean, while making this assignment of Contact to an Account in u201Ccontact Person Relationships datau201D under u201CPartner Function Assignment blocku201D (in web UI) we are adding a Partner function E.g. Author, (same can be seen in GUI, under Usage tab of CP Relationship data).
However we were able to replicate contacts assigned to accounts to ECC in our 5 partner functions, but even the unwanted contacts assigned to other partner functions in CRM are also getting replicated
How can I restrict CP replication from CRM to ECC based on Partner Functions assigned to the Contact Person
Your help is highly appriciated.
Points guaranteed.
RegardsIssue resolved using CRMC_BUT_CALL_FU.
Posing the table name, just in case it might help others.
Thanks
Maybe you are looking for
-
Daily reminders in calendar don't work
I have recently updated my 8900 online. Since this update my daily reminders in calendar wont work. Weekly, Monthly, Yearly, Every other day. All these reminders work but not ones that are supposed to be daily. I am epileptic and need to take dai
-
Issue with Repousse with Paths in CS5 Extended
Hi, Really hoping someone can help, I'm hoping I'm doing something stupid 1) I drawn out a path using the pen tool 2) I select the path with the path selection tool !!! 3) I go to 3d/repousse/selected path... I do not see the 3d shape in the repousee
-
i have talked to gracenote and they said its an apple problem
-
I used recovery manager to backup my data then i went through the restore process and i have a shortcut on my desktop what am i supposed to do with this i cant seem to access any of the files but they are all there help
-
Video upgrade for DV7 4087cl laptop?
Hi guys, please someone could tell me if it's possible to upgrade the video for my DV7 4087cl laptop? Currently it has an ATI Mobility HD 5000 Series and an Intel integrated... it's possible to choose wich one to use according to the need. So I want