Comments required on the MIRO postings

Hi:
         I want forum's comments on the following entry related to AUC asset's MIRO. PR , PO was raised for it and when MIRO was done, system posted the following entry
ATLAS COPCO COMPRESSED     778,375.00-
Ext Serv Cl AC/Asset     755,690.00
000029000024 0000     22,685.00
My concern is on the highlighted debit entry. System has posted the exchange rate difference to AUC asset rather than posting to Exchange rate gains and loss account for which necessary settings are in place in OBA1. I want to know is it standard procedure to post the rate difference to AUC Asset rather than its original exchange rate differences. I tried to go through IAS but could not find any clue .
Regards

Hi Thakur:
The issue is still unresolved since the accounting standard you quoted in not International Accounting Standard for Fixed Assets which is IAS 16 in fact. Finance and Audit team is reluctant to accept the accounting standard logic which you quoted. Do you any updates why is system behaving this way. We have tried convincing finance and audit team but no use.
To accept their argument we have provided them a solution to avoid FOREX capitalization upon MIRO in AUC assets is to do MIRO with the same date as of GR using LIV BAdi "INVOICE_UPDATE but still i would like to know what is missing in configuration that instead of FOREX getting posted to Asset it should be posted to its own expense account.
Regards
Edited by: Atif Farooq on Sep 19, 2011 1:52 PM

Similar Messages

Vendor Payment has been done without doing MIRO Postings

Hi,
In the SAP system, Goods receipt has been done (MIGO) with respect to a Purchase order for the period of March 2009 fiscal year. Now FI user has made the direct payment to the vendor in April period of 2010 fiscal year for the qty. received without doing the Invoicing in the MIRO postings. Now there is a difference in the accounting entries as still the open invoice exists for the Purchase order even though the payment has been made in the SAP system. So, kindly suggest what can be done further to correct the accounting entries.
Thanks & Regards,
Pavan

Hi
Please let me know hich will be the correct solution for the issuein the below given points for the problem stated in the message:
1. Doing the cancellation of Goods receipt documents and then marking the deletion of PO's.
OR
2. Running MR11 - GR/IR Clearence for the PO's for which GR done and IR not done.
OR
3. Doing cancellation of Vendor Payment and then doing MIRO for the PO's for which GR was done earlier.
I think all above are OK, it depends which one is the most acceptable one for your customer, for example if goods has already been receipted physically, then option 1 is not applicable.
I would like to say 3. might be the best way.
Thanks and regards,
Polly
Edited by: Polly Gan on Apr 12, 2010 8:21 AM

Making the comments field Required in the Workitem

Hello,
I have a GP Application wherein the initiator fills out a form which goes to the Approver using Visual Approval Callable Object.........now when the approver opens the workitem he sees the information entered by the initiator and a comments field at the bottom......we want to make this field required for them.......how can we achieve this.....while creation of the Visual Approval Callable Object i see the comments as a output parameter with the 'Is Required' checkbox option....but it is disabled and does not allow you to select it......Please help...
Any help would be highly appreciated...
Regards,
Anil

Hi Anil,
Standard Visual Approval CO doesnt work like that.
Either you can create your own CO.
OR
i can suggest you as follows, but it is making little complicated process.
1. Create one Action with Business Logic callable object, which will check for Comment EQ space or not and have 2 different states.
a. If Comments is blank, Go back to Approval Action
b. If Comments is entered, Proceed for further actions.
2. Set this action as target for Approval Action.
Hope this helps you.
Thanks,
Tejaswini

Required to change the Baseline Date in the MIRO Invocie Document

Dear Friends,
According to the Payment Terms, while doing the MIRO, the Baseline Date getting populated corresponds to the Document Date. However, the users need to replace the same with the GR Date. Is there a way to check for the GR date or the Delivery Date from the Invoice Verification screen layout?. In view of high volumes, the users do not want to go for another step of scrutinizing the PO History to know the GR date and instead desire to find the same from the Invoice Verification step itself. Is there a way to do this?
Thanks for the help.
Regards

Hi,
You need to use substitution with exit (GGB1/ OBBH) to populate the GR date in the baseline date field.
Also go through the below thread:-
[Re: Substitution - Baseline Date to be replaced by the Goods Receipt date;
Regards,
SDNer

MIRO postings during MIGO

Hi Friends,
My client requirement is like this:
During Return Delivery (MIGO - M.type:122), system should post Vendor Debit (MIRO) postings also. They don't want to do it in two steps.
Any user exist available in MIGO to activate MIRO postings.
I couldn't convince my client. Please throw some light.
Regards,
Karthi

Thank you for your reply.
I got a hint from SAP library which may address my requirement. (Manual LIV & Automatic Debit during return delivery)
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_erp2005/helpdata/en/4c/92aa38ac576d1be10000009b38f8cf/frameset.htm
But the problem is, I couldn't found the field "Auto. debit" in vendor master.
Can you help me in this.
Karthi

On the input : error message if there is no such id in the database to edit? and out put comments messed up the whole

The first page (CoGetEditForm.cfm lets you input the co id
then it get to the next page for you to edit (CoEditForm.cfm). then
it lets take action and UPDATEs (CoEditAction.cfm) finally, it goes
to the colist.cfm to query results and outputs it to html format.
<td>#comm#</td>
Question is that:
1. where and what do I do to have an error message if there
is no such id in the database to edit?
2. the out put comments messed up the whole query results
when I added it to the html out put results. What can I do to clean
this up and where do I put the code?

<html>
<head>
<title>Main Title</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="styles.css">
</head>
<body>
<h1>Edit a Co based on co_ID</h1>
<table>
<cfform action="CO_EditForm.cfm" method="POST">
<tr>
<td>Co_ID</td>
<td>
<cfinput type="Text"
name="Co_ID"
message="Please enter the Co_ID"
validate="integer"
required="Yes"
size="22"
maxlength="20">
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td>
<input type="submit" value="GetCo">
</td>
</tr>
</cfform>
</table>
</body>
</html>

<cfquery name="GetCo"
datasource="#Request.MainDSN#">
SELECT
COName,
ADD,
City,
st,
zip,
comm
FROM
CO
WHERE
Co_ID = #Val(Co_ID)#
</cfquery>
<html>
<head>
<title>Main Title</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="styles.css">
</head>
<body>
<h1>Edit a CO</h1>
<table>
<cfform action="COEditAction.cfm" method="POST">
<cfoutput>
<input type="hidden" name="COID" value="#Val(COID)#">
</cfoutput>
<tr>
<td>CO Name</td>
<td>
<cfinput type="Text"
name="COName"
value="#GetCO.COName#"
message="Please enter a name for this CO."
required="Yes"
size="40"
maxlength="40">
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>ADD</td>
<td>
<cfinput type="Text"
name="ADD"
value="#GetCO.ADD#"
message="Please enter this new CO's ADD."
required="Yes"
size="32"
maxlength="30">
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>City</td>
<td>
<cfinput type="Text"
name="City"
value="#GetCO.City#"
message="Please enter a city."
required="Yes"
size="22"
maxlength="20">
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>st</td>
<td>
<cfinput type="Text"
name="st"
value="#GetCO.st#"
message="Please enter a st."
required="Yes"
size="3"
maxlength="2">
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>ZIP Code</td>
<td>
<cfinput type="Text"
name="zip"
value="#GetCO.zip#"
message="Please enter a valid ZIP Code."
validate="zip"
required="Yes"
size="11"
maxlength="10">
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>comm</td>
<td>
<textarea cols="40" rows="5"
name="comm"><cfoutput>#GetCO.comm#</cfoutput></textarea>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td>
<input type="submit" value="Update Database">
</td>
</tr>
</cfform>
</table>
</body>
</html>
<cfquery name="UpdateCO"
datasource="#Request.MainDSN#">
UPDATE CO
SET
COName = '#Trim(Form.COName)#',
ADD = '#Trim(Form.ADD)#',
City = '#Trim(Form.City)#',
st = '#Trim(Form.st)#',
zip = '#Trim(Form.zip)#',
comm =
<cfif Len(Trim(Form.comm)) GT 0>
'#Trim(Form.comm)#'
<cfelse>
NULL
</cfif>
WHERE
COID = #Val(Form.COID)#
</cfquery>
<cflocation url="COList.cfm">
<cfquery name="GetCo"
datasource="#Request.MainDSN#">
SELECT
coID,
coName,
ADD,
City,
st,
zip,
comm
FROM
co
ORDER BY
coName ASC
</cfquery>
<html>
<head>
<title>title getco</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="styles.css">
</head>
<body>
<h1>y List</h1>
<table>
<tr>
<td><b>ID</b></td>
<td><b>Name</b></td>
<td><b>ADD</b></td>
<td><b>City</b></td>
<td><b>st</b></td>
<td><b>ZIP Code</b></td>
<td><b>comm</b></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<cfoutput query="GetCompanies">
<tr bgcolor="<cfif currentrow mod
2>GHOSTWHITE<cfelse>WHITE</cfif>">
<td>#coID#</td>
<td>#coName#</td>
<td>#ADD#</td>
<td>#City#</td>
<td>#st#</td>
<td>#zip#</td>
<td>#comm#</td>
<td>
<a
href="EmployeeList.cfm?coID=#coID#">Employees</a>
<a href="coAddForm.cfm">Add</a>
<a href="coEditForm.cfm?coID=#coID#">Edit</a>
<a
href="coDeleteForm.cfm?coID=#coID#">Delete</a>
</td>
</tr>
</cfoutput>
</table>
</body>
</html>

After your SQL SELECT on CO_EditForm.cfm, you need a
<CFIF> that checks to see if any records were retrieved. See
below.

Issue related to the Excise Postings

Issue related to the Excise Postings
My Scenario is i have an Purchase Order with Excise Duty of 16.48%
For Eg: Net Price(1000) + Excise Duty (16.48%) = Rs.1164.8
my vendor gives me a Modvat of 10% i.e Rs.104.8
but i have to pay him the total amount (i.e with excise)=Rs.1164.8
How to do the GR with Excise & Invoice Verification??
Wat amount will be Credited to vendor???
How to do Excise Posting for this Scenario???
Thanx & Regards,
Kumar Rayudu
Message was edited by:
Kumar Rayudu

Hiii Ramakrishna,,
User doesnt know at the Time of Purchase Order that how much excise & Modvat will be getting. Only the Gross value is given in the Purchase order including all
taxes ( No Tax Code in the Purchase Order).
Excise Invoice and Vendor's Bill are received when the Materials are received.
They will get the Modavat according to the Excise Invoice of the Manufacturer
Now while doing GR i manually give the Excise BED & Cess given in the Manufacturer Excise Invoice.
Post the Excise Invoice before doing MIRO.
The Problem is in the MIRO Transaction.
At the MIRO i have selected the Tax Code with Excise.
System is caluclating the the Excise on the PO Value i.e more than the value in the Vendor Excise Invoice (Part 1 & Part 2) and the Liablity of vendor is increased and the difference amount is posted to the material.
Everything is going fine except the Vendor's liability and it should be value of the Purchase Order.
How the system is caluclating the Value ???
am i doing any wrong procedure???
Explain me???
Thanx & Regards.
Kumar Rayudu

Quantity and Amount From Import PO in the MIRO

Hi,
As for the import PO we are entering Different vendor code i.e customer code for the tax condiiton in the Import PO,
and after custom clearence before making Gr and doing J1IEX we are doing MIRO for the customer vendor in this miro we are capturing data ref. to customr vendor code like CVD , Education cess and higher education cess, but when we are doing MIRO accordin gto PO we ahve to enter the qty. and Amount of that PO in front of each material and tax cod
our requirement is that when we are doing MIRO for import PO with custom vendor code the qty. and amount should be appear automatically as per the PO, so how to do it.
regards,
zafar

Hi,
In IMPORT PO, first step while creating PO, deselect the GR based IV.
and for CVD(JCV1), give the custom as vender and save.
2. Go to MIRO, selct the planned delivery cost and do the MIRO.
4. Go to MIGO, as soon as u gave the PO number, system will ask for commercial Invoice Numer.
5. Then Go to MIRO.
if you are in CIN then
.Go to J1IEX, capture Excise Invoice....here give the commercial Invoice Number i.e. your MIRO document number.
Regards,
Pardeep Malik

This component requires that the embedded font be declared with embedAsCFF=false.

I'm getting the following warning for my project.
"warning: incompatible embedded font 'MyFont' specified for views::MyViewInnerClass0 (MyViewInnerClass0_61) . This component requires that the embedded font be declared with embedAsCFF=false."
Here's what I have in my style.css file.
/* CSS file */
@namespace s "library://ns.adobe.com/flex/spark";
@namespace supportClasses "spark.globalization.supportClasses.*";
@namespace views "views.*";
@font-face {
          src: url("assets/MyFont.ttf");
fontFamily: "MyFont";
advancedAntiAliasing: true;
embedAsCFF: true;
@font-face {
          src: url("assets/MyFont.ttf");
fontFamily: "MyFont";
advancedAntiAliasing: false;
embedAsCFF: false;
The 2nd font section I have is what is suggested as the fix in most places but that isn't working out for me. I wonder if I'm missing something else.

I tried changing the name and it didn't work. Tried all sort of combinations too and none worked. Tried a different font and that didn't work too.
Turns out the problem wasn't in the declaration of the fonts but where I was using it.
I initially had the font declared globally
global
   fontFamily: DroidSansMono;
I saw that, in your comment you had mentioned "..then apply it to the component" so I applied the font to the label component
s|Label
fontFamily: DroidSansMono;
and boom.. no warning. Problem solved.
Thanks so much.

Downpayment to check the MIRO payments for same PO

Hi SAP Gurus,
The system is allowing to make a down payment for a PO for which the the MIRO and payment for the entire PO value has already been processed. The standard system should not allow this transaction as it is a security threat. We have already made the message no. F5373 as an error message, but it checks only the PO value and not the MIRO payments.
Regards,
Vikas

Thanks,
Problem has been resolved as client has agreed not to to go ahead with this requirement.
Regards,
Vikas

Need to add the field on the MIRO screen...!!!!

Hi All,
Customer has a requirment to add the one field under the 'Details' tab of the MIRO screen.
I tried searching Screen Exits for this, but no success..
Is there any OSS note for this which can serve the purpose?
Thanks in advance.
-Sanjay

My requirement is To display automatic cash management group with reference to account group in vendor master.
In vendor master initial screen if user enters Account group (LFA1-KTOKK) as VWOP or DMST in the accounting information screen Cash management group field (LFB1 FDGRV) planning group code A1 has to display.
In change mode if any of the user trys to change planning group code an error massage change is not possible has to appear..
Now i ve coded in the method PRESET_VALUES_CCODE which is in the BADI definition VENDOR_ADD_DATA this method is getting triggered even after the accounting information screen displayed and could you please help me in displayin the error message? The error message is getting displayed but in the form of a pop when u say yes it leaves the transaction.. but I want the error message as a normal red colored error message which comes in the bottom line.. please tell me how could I do this.. this is the codin which I have done.. please give some solution please..
method IF_EX_VENDOR_ADD_DATA~PRESET_VALUES_CCODE .
break-point.
if E_LFB1-FDGRV is initial.
if I_LFA1-ktokk = 'DMST' or I_LFA1-ktokk = 'VWOP'.
E_LFB1-FDGRV = 'A1' .
ENDIF.
else.
if I_LFA1-ktokk = 'DMST' or I_LFA1-ktokk = 'VWOP' .
if E_LFB1-FDGRV <> 'A1'.
message id 'ZZ' type 'E' number '108' with
'Change is not possible' .
*message e108(zz).
*CALL FUNCTION 'C14Z_MESSAGES_SHOW_AS_POPUP'
*EXPORTING
*I_MSGID = 'ZZ'
*I_MSGTY = 'E'
*I_MSGNO = '108'
*I_MSGV1 = 'change is not possible'
I_MSGV2 =
I_MSGV3 =
I_MSGV4 =
I_LINENO =
TABLES
I_MESSAGE_TAB =
*IF sy-subrc <> 0.
MESSAGE ID SY-MSGID TYPE SY-MSGTY NUMBER SY-MSGNO
WITH SY-MSGV1 SY-MSGV2 SY-MSGV3 SY-MSGV4.
*ENDIF.
endif.
endif.
endif.
endmethod.

Alternative Reconcialtion account while doig the MIRO

Hi All,
One of the cleint required alternative Reconcialtion accoutn while doign the MIRO. Scenario like this there is one Vendor 'A' used supplies Raw material and Serives to company. Business is not intrested to create new vendor. But they needs different reco accounts for one vendor master.
I did mentioned customization in SPRO :-
1. Maintain the Alternative Reco accounts
2. Select the ready for input check box of Recon accounts.
But still system is not accepting to change reco account while doing the MIRO. Change happens while doign the FB60
Rgds
SumaMani

HI sumamani,
As you are aware that it is not possible to change the reconciliation
account in MIRO.In transaction FB60, it is possible to change the field
value. SAP give us only the permitted account maintained in the
customizing table THKON.
In MM, the accounts are automatically determined from the
customizing in transaction OMWB, or taken from the purchase order
account assignment data.You can also have a quick look in tr OMRMB,
you will notice that field INVFO-HKONT is not there to be customized.
There is no solution available within the SAP standard system for the
change of the reconciliation account for the vendor.
According to the information I got from the responsible development
department I can only inform you that the required functionality will
not be implemented in SAP standard for MM invoice verification.
Field in question is hard coded and can not be changed.
MM invoice verification was developed to finish the external procurement
process in logistics and check the invoice data sent by the vendors for
correctness (differences) and to post the corresponding accounting
document in FI additional.
Creating manually creditor invoices in FI have no relation to a logistic
process.
Therefore not all functions included in FI (FB60) are included in MM
invoice verification (MIRO) as well.
reg
Madhu M

The GRN Document on the MIRO

Hi All
I have a requirement where the customer needs to see the Goods receipt document number instead of the Purchase Order/Delivery Note on the MIRO Screen. So that when the GRN doc number is input, it will bring up only the line items that were received instead of all the lines on the PO itself.
Is that possible and if so can anyone please guide me as to how to go about doing it?
Thank you
Rukshana

What I need is instead of entering the PO reference at MIRO - i want to be able to enter teh GR doc number and get ONLY the items that were GRN'd for the PO
GRN Number is the one defined in SAP for material Document as a Proof of Delivery, the Delivery Note Number is the one which will be provided by Vendor, that's why SAP has given the Delivery note option in MIGO Screen.
by putting the Delivery note Number in MIRO you will get the GRN done Items for that Delivery Note in MIRO.
Where as if you use GR-basedIV indicator, then you will get all the GRN items for the PO in MIRO.
Your requirement is to see only GRN documents in MIRO then that would be done with GR-basedIV indicator.

SSRS Report : Editable Textbox in footer to add Comments before printing the report

Hello,
I have created few SSRS reports and now in the footer of all the reports, there is a requirement to put the Editable Text so that Client can put comments about explaining the Reports and then export it.
Is there anyway we can have Editable Textbox in the footer?
Any other control I can use here?
Thank you,
Mittal.

Hi ,
there is no direct approach for the same but you can try workaround .
You can try below link;
http://techequation.com/wordpress/workaround-for-editable-textbox-in-ssrs-report-for-comment-option/
Thanks
Please Mark This As Answer or vote for Helpful Post if this helps you to solve your question/problem.

Comments required fields

I would like to make the comments form have the name field and email address as required fileds. What is the proper way to go about this? Any help would be appreciated.

<div style="display: none;" id="comments">
<h5> Comments</h5>
{tag_commentspaged}
<form onsubmit="return checkWholeForm(this)" action="/RatingProcess.aspx?OID={tag_blogpostid}&OTYPE={tag_blogposttype}" method="post">
    <h5> Post a Comment</h5>
    <div class="form">
    <div class="item">
    <label> Name (required)</label>
    <br />
    <input maxlength="255" name="fullname" class="cat_textbox_small" />
    </div>
    <div class="item">
    <label> Website (optional)</label>
    <br />
    <input maxlength="255" name="website" class="cat_textbox_small" />
    </div>
    <div class="item">
    <label> Email Address (required)</label>
    <br />
    <input maxlength="255" name="emailaddress" class="cat_textbox_small" />
    </div>
    <div class="item">
    <label> Enter Word Verification in box below</label>
    <br />
    {module_captchav2}
    </div>
    <div class="item">
    <label> Your comment</label>
    <br />
    <textarea name="Feedback" class="cat_listbox_small"></textarea>
    </div>
    <div class="item">
    <input type="submit" value="Submit" />
    </div>
    </div>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="/CatalystScripts/ValidationFunctions.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript">
      //<![CDATA[
      function checkWholeForm(theForm) {
        var why = "";
        if (theForm.EmailAddress) if (theForm.EmailAddress.value.length > 0) why += checkEmail(theForm.EmailAddress.value);
        if (theForm.CaptchaV2) why += isEmpty(theForm.CaptchaV2.value, "Enter Word Verification in box below");
        if (why != "") { alert(why); return false; }
        return true;
      //]]>
      </script>
</form>
</div>


IE9 supports HTML5
It is a nicer way for form validation before the BC one kicks in. I do this by default on all forms that kicks in before javascript. It is the way forward.
For this and placeholder the javascript code for validation is very small.
I have one that converts placeholder for IE - few lines of code.
I have a function that is my own field validation, the element for required is just a couple of lines of jQuery and looks for required and uses name for the alert.
Since I overide default alerts for better ones as well I also have that and fall back for default on mobile devices.
For most people using default is fine of course but anyone wanting to explore options these are the sort of steps you can take on BC forms and have better validation and ease of use setup etc. Defiantly posible with very little scripting.

Comments required on the MIRO postings

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for