CUP UWL and HR assignement issues

Hello all,
Does anyone know if:
1/ is there a possibility to send a request for approvel to the UWL task list or only to the CUP task list?
2/ is there a restriction of opening a request for another user based on an organizational assignment? (the requestor will be able to open a request for a user who is in the same HR org unit as the requestor)
Thanks

I am using Role mapping in my company.
Our need for role mapping is due to our CUA composite structure containing shell roles with pointers (RFC target destinations) to the child systems containing single roles with authorisations.
Mapping overcame a limitation in RAR to analyse the authorisations obtained through RFC pointers.
So far we have only used a sample set of composites with singles mapped to them but will be uploading thousands next week.
The potential issues you face depend on your authorisation concept in use.
For example, in your mapping reflects your Composite/Single Role assignment, then you will face the following.
Adding a composite using CUP will also add the singles mapped to the composite. So in the CUA system you will see the same single role twice, one in blue (assigned via composite) and one in black (assigned via CUP Mapping).
I'm happy to discuss further on the phone if easier where we can share more of our challenges.
Thanks,
Babak

Similar Messages

Vendor and Account Assignment Issues

Hi All,
Iam Working in ECS SRM 5.0,
When We are trying to creat SC, we are getting following errors :
1.Vendor 0000100029 not intended for purch. org. (Item Sourcing Strategy & Plan Consulting )
SOS is automatically assiged to particular product ID thru Purchasing Contract (Purchasing Contract created locally).Vendor is assigned to the Purchasing Contract.Vendor is properly mapped to the respective Purchasing Organization as recored in the table BBPM_BUT_FRG0061.Purchasing Contract is also mapped to the same Purchasing Organization of Vendor.
2.Account 50011 requires an assignment to a CO object (Item Sourcing Strategy & Plan Consulting )
2.1 Error in account assignment for item 1
Account assignment Categories and G/L Acc. are properly maintained and activated in SRM for each Product Category. same values for G/L Acc. and Acc.Assignment Categories are maintained in R/3. In R/3 when we checked in the tables SKA1,SKB1 & SKAT all these entries are maintained properly.
In our project Scenario we don't require CO Component only AP Component is Configured for our Business Requirement.
Full points will be rewarded for the solution.
([email protected])

Hi
Please go through this ->
Please implement following SAP OSS Notes ->
Note 1026168 - Vendor &1 not intended for purch. org. &2
[ This is caused due to a program error. The reason for this error is, purchasing organization and purchasing group are always assigned at header level and in this case SRM is passing the item guid to determine the backend purchasing organization and purchasing.group. The header guid should be passed instead. ]
Q 3: Why does the system issue message KI 235 - 'Account & requires an assignment to a CO object'?
Answer ->
--> In SRM, you always have to post to a G/L account and to a CO object. Exceptions: Direct material scenario - account assignment occurs in the OLTP regardless of what was previously entered in SRM. For external requirements, the primary system is the OLTP from which the demand is issued and sent to SRM. In this case, account assignment changes are not allowed in SRM because this would lead to inconsistencies (in follow-on documents as well) when compared to the primary system.
--> In /OBA5, you can suppress the message or define it as a warning message. Since only error messages are transferred to SRM (BBP_PD 047), the message then no longer is issued in SRM. Do not consult the FI/CO team when implementing the changes.
(See related SAP Consulting Notes - Release-Independent
Note 815849 - FAQ: Account assignment system response)
Hope this will definitely help. Do let me know.
Regards
- Atul

UWL and deputy assignement

Hi,
if a manager is on vacation and wants to assign a deputy :
In EP 6.0, there was a tab rider "Deputy"
I can't find something similiar in Ep 7.0
Any help is rewarded
greetings
-hs

Hi Holger,
At least, it should be there, see the NW04s documentation: http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04s/helpdata/en/0b/1fc20097b74c41b38621ec2a9454bb/frameset.htm
Problems are known for SPS08, see SAP note 812079.
The english expression within the portal is "Substitute".
Hope it helps
Detlev

Users unable to see Issues and Risk assigned to them in PWA 2013

User unable to see Issues and Risk assigned to them in PWA 2013 site

Hi,
I think this a duplicate of you other thread
Paul

SAP IDM 7.1 Role assignment issue

Hello IDM Experts,
I am facing one critical issue here. We have connected SAP GRC with SAP IDM for risk analysis and CUP approvals and then once the approvers have approved the requests, IDM assigns these approved roles to users in backend SAP Systems.
We are now facing issue here past 1-month. Before we never faced this issue.
The issue is when the Roles are approved from GRC-CUP AC 5.3, post the approvals, the IDM is pulling the data and some of the roles are not getting assigned in SAP Backend systems. In the 1st and 2nd attempt it is not getting assigned however sometimes in the 3rd attempt it is getting assigned. This kind of weird behavior we have come across first time. Has anyone come across such issues before?
What could be the possible reason for the roles not getting assigned in SAP Backend system from IDM?
We checked everything right from dispatchers, connectors, workflow, SQL Logs, Job logs but we are unable to figure out the reason for this issue.
Do we need to restart the dispatcher or is there any issue with cache memory?
Can anyone help here to resolve this High Priority issue?
Thanks in advance!

IDM Experts,
Can I get response on this topic from the experts?
Will restarting the dispatchers help in this situation? Is this related to housekeeping issue of dispatcher.
Why are some roles from IDM are not getting assigned in SAP Backend system? Also it is getting rejected 1st and 2nd time and during 3rd time it is getting approved. Please advise
Regards
Malini Rao

How to add 1 more column in standard portal UWL and map the values.

Hi
I have one issue/requirement, please help me out on that also.
In portal UWL, i want to add one more column TICKET ID COLUMN, and ticket id value I will be putting as work item ID of abap Workflow, so whenever approver opens his portal UWL, in first column i want to show ticket ID say 00012345, so how to add this ticket ID column in standard portal UWL and how to put/map value of work item in that column.
My idea behind this is, when ever say employee wants to know the status about his ticket ID, he can simply ask his manager regarding the ticket status by referring to that ticket ID which manager can easily find in his portal UWL in that extra TICKET ID COLUMN .
Do I have to change anything in SAP inbox also ? Do i have to add 1 more colum in sap R/3 inbox also ? and will adding 1 more colum in sap inbox (R/3 inbox), will create automatically one more ticket ID colum in portal UWL also ?
please let me know , as i do not want to add 1 extra column in R/3 inbox, just i want in portal UWL extra ticket ID column should come and i want to put workitem ID generated at the start of workflow, in that colum in portal UWL
please help me on this.
Thanks...
Edited by: User Satyam on May 29, 2011 6:16 AM

Hi Satyam,
These are called custom attributes. Here is a powerpoint that may be able to assist you with the documentation that the other poster gave you too.
Always remember too when you make a change on the backend R/3 side, you must reregister your UWL connector. And yes, the column must be available on the backend R/3 side. We can't create on the fly columns in the UWL, that have no reference to the backend system in this case.
Beth Maben
EP - Senior Support Consultant II
AGS Primary Support
Global Support Centre Ireland
Please see the UWL Wiki @
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/wiki?path=/display/bpx/uwl+faq ***

BAPI_PO_CREATE1 for blocked item and account assignment category Q

Hi,
I am facing an issue while creating PO with items which are blocked ie LOEKZ = 'S', and account assignment category 'Q'.
Though I fill wbs element in POACCOUNT and POACCOUNTX structures, after execution it is being erased and am getting an error: "Enter WBS Element" with an information message "Change G/L Account could not be effected".
Please help.
Thanks in advance.
Regards
Kalyani

Hi Ravi,
Below is the code:
POITEM-PO_ITEM = '00010'
POITEM-DELETE_IND = 'S'
POITEM-ACCTASSCAT = 'Q'
POACCOUNT-PO_ITEM = '00010'
POACCOUNT-SERIAL_NO = '01'
POACCOUNT-CO_AREA = '1000'
POACCOUNT-WBS_ELEMENT = 'XXXX'
I filled POITEMX, POACCOUNTX structures too.
When I dont pass POITEM-DELETE_IND = 'S', the PO is being created.
But my requirement is to make the item blocked.
Thanks in advance.
Regards
Kalyani

Define G/L Account for Product Category and Account Assignment Category

Hello Experts,
I got a requirment to make a new entry in below SPRO path.
Define G/L Account for Product Category and Account Assignment Category
*Individual entries cannot be put into the change request*
*Message no. SV141*
*Diagnosis*
*For technical reasons, the entries cannot be fully specified in the change request. There are two possible reasons for this:*
*1. The key of an entry is longer than 120 characters. All entries whose keys match up to character 119, are then copied into the change request, rather than an individual entry.*
*2. The key of an entry contains fields of special data types, for example, packed numbers. The key can only be specified in the change request up to the first such field from the left.*
*all entries whose keys match up to character 26 are copied into the change request, rather than a single entry.*
*System Response*
*The selected entry is copied into the change request correctly, but other entries may be copied as well.*
My question is, If I make one entry and move to Quality and production system will it move only one entry or whole table will move?
Kindly help me.
Thanking you
Regards
Sharan

I got the same message trying to make an entry in SPRO:
Define Backend System for Product Category
I found the note 305942 describing exactly the issue for my and above mentioned entry, which offers the correction, then the note 326802 which offers the correction of the first notes. However, both notes are for Releases 4.6C and D (from 2000), and we are using EHP2 FOR SAP SRM 7.0.
I see another discussions in SCN regarding this topic, but haven't found real solution yet. Any hints? At least the answer to previous question from Sharan would be appreciated.
Best regards,
Toni

TDS Certificate, Challan Payment Issue and BSR Code Issue

Hi All,
I have configured Extended withholding tax as follows and encountered some issues
1. Specify Document Type (Accounts Payable): Here I have given Document type as SA and I am able to Pay the remittance challan through Post Vendor challan transaction.
MY question is How can I update my check no. I tried to update through FCH5 But it is showing no data.
2. Form 16A Certificate: How the field Cheque / DD No (If Any) gets updated?
3. BSR Code in Form 16A: I have maintained Bank branch in FI02. and made the remittance challan through that bank.
but still my BSR Code is not updating in Form 16A.
4. Form 16A Certificate: How does the Quarter Acknowledgement No field gets updated?
Kindly provide me the solutions for the above queries.
Your inputs are very much appreciated.
Thanks in Advance
Best Regards
Shashi
Edited by: shashi mantripragada on Apr 7, 2010 9:43 AM
Edited by: shashi mantripragada on Apr 12, 2010 2:13 PM

Hi,
Please check entries in the number ranges that needs to be maintained for WT certificates.
Financial Accounting (New) - Financial Accounting Global Settings (New) - Withholding Tax - Extended Withholding Tax - Posting - India - Withholding Tax Certificates for Vendors and Customers - Maintain Number Ranges
And also check its assignment.
Hope this helps.
Vikas.

Defining G/L Account for product category and account assignment category

We are using the standard configuration to default in a G/L account for a given product category and account assignment category combination. This works well for us when it comes to the shopping transactions (i.e. BBPSC01, BBPSC02, etc.), however we have a problem with this logic in the carry out sourcing transction BBPSOCO01. Our users are creating describe requirements which are then delivered to BBPSOCO01, however the user is not assigning the correct product category, so the sourcing department updates the cart with the correct product category. Upon doing so, the G/L account gets changed to whatever the V_BBP_DET_ACCT table determines is correct for that given product category/account assignment combination. We would like to know if their is a way to not fire the "default G/L account determination" when the shopping cart is changed in transaction BBPSOCO01. I already know about the BBP_DETERMINE_ACCT BADI but thought there might be a less expensive alternative. Our business treats the G/L account provided by the configuration as a guideline, therefore when the buyer changes the product category they also want to retain the account assignment information. Any suggesstions on how this might be accomplished outside of creating my own logic in the BADI?
Best regards,
Shawn O'Connor

I got the same message trying to make an entry in SPRO:
Define Backend System for Product Category
I found the note 305942 describing exactly the issue for my and above mentioned entry, which offers the correction, then the note 326802 which offers the correction of the first notes. However, both notes are for Releases 4.6C and D (from 2000), and we are using EHP2 FOR SAP SRM 7.0.
I see another discussions in SCN regarding this topic, but haven't found real solution yet. Any hints? At least the answer to previous question from Sharan would be appreciated.
Best regards,
Toni

PA and PSA Inheritance issue from Org Unit

Hi,
I am trying to create an Org Unit with effective from today or a future date. When I do this, PA and PSA is not getting inherited for the newly created Org Unit.
But when I create an Org Unit with effective from past date, this issue is not there and works fine perfectly.
Note: The issue is there in the Development Client as of now. But there is no issue in quality. There was a recent patch that gets updated in Dev system. Not sure whether patch is an issue.
Cheers
Vijay

hi vijay...
would you tell me about your problem in bit details...
i understand that if you create new org unit with existing org unit which already maintained with its PA and PSA assigned in Account Assignment tab then its never occur this problem..but if you create your org unit out side the remaining structure the you must assign PA and PSA for this specific
Regards
Bashir Ahmadani

Shared services- Access Assign issue for Essbase

Hi All,
I need to associate Filter with a group in Shared Services, but when I go to Application Groups, right click on the Application name and select "Assign access control", but in the list of Groups that come in the very first window, i dont see all the grousp listed there, has anyoen seen thsi issue before and knows teh fix for it?

We dont have direct Role provisioning to teh groups. Here we actualy have a group AllUsers and have added all other grousp as "GRoup membere" to thsi group/ Now this AllUsers group has teh roel provisioned to it. So in such a case, to see the grousp listed under "Assign Access Control" do they need to eb provisioned individually as well at group level, or teh above scenario that I mentioned also works fine?

Sculpture automation & Controller assignment issues

Hey guys,
I have an instance on Sculpture in a project i am working on. Everything is fine until the point where i try to manually write some automation in the arrange window. As soon as I select the parameter i want to change (LFO1 rate in this case) the sound of sculpture gets all weird and sounds nothing like the one before.
Is this some kind of bug? has anyone encountered this?
I also have another question and as im posting this anyway ill just put it here.
Im trying to set up a nanoKontrol2. Ctrl+k, created several modes (fader, es2, ultrabeat etc). I've assigned several buttons to switch between the modes but the assigned functions wont operate until i also choose that particular instrument in the arrange window.
Is there a way around this? i.e switch bet modes and actually affect that instrument without having to use a mouse to choose it?
Im also having problems with the fader mappings when trying to control volume levels of multi output instruments exs24, ultrabeat. When i move a fader of the overall instrument only the volume of one (unassigned) fader of lets say output 3-4 of that instrument will get affected. Im i doing something wrong?
Cheers

I'm not sure if this will help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvBmsMB2XSQ&feature=PlayList&p=5B14BDD35A022ED3&i ndex=45
I spent a whole day following the above advice, assigning controls for my M-Audio keyrig 25 to 18 different logic native plugins (Channel EQ, Guitar Amp Pro, Tape Delay, etc etc). And then assigning'no-mode mode change' (if you follow me) to different letters on my 'caps lock keyboard'. This worked great yesterday. Now today it's all flaky: The caps lock keyboard doesn't change modes anymore, and only one of the assignment 'maps' seems to work. (Even making sure all target plug ins were on the same SELECTED track, and the plugin in question had 'focus' by clicking on it). Does anyone know if there's a known issue with controller assignment recall in Logic Pro (8)?
JD

[SOLVED] Cups 2.0 remote access issues

After CUPS recent upgrade to 2.0 both my cups server and client stopped working. In particular, I cannot even get to the administration pages from remote access.
I can get to CUPS's home page, but I get an error as soon as I try to access any other page. The error I get in the browser (firefox) is
Unable to connect
Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at ....
Following wiki instructions, in my cupsd.conf file I have replaced the standard
Listen localhost:631
with the ip range for the local network
Listen 192.168.0.0/24:631
and I have added
<Location />
Order allow,deny
Allow from @LOCAL
</Location>
# Restrict access to the admin pages...
<Location /admin>
Order allow,deny
Allow from @LOCAL
</Location>
# Restrict access to configuration files...
<Location /admin/conf>
AuthType Basic
Require user @SYSTEM
Order allow,deny
Allow From @LOCAL
</Location>
DefaultEncription Never
Unfortunately, nothing has changed. I still get the same error in the browser and I cannot access the admin pages (or any page other than the home page).
Help is greatly appreciated.
Stefano
Last edited by stefano (2014-11-08 15:27:03)

clfarron4 wrote:
Guzzista wrote:
Same here, I discovered my file sshd.service disappeared on the server. I get the error
# systemctl start cupsd
Failed to start cupsd.service: Unit cupsd.service failed to load: No such file or directory.
Don't know how to solve for now
Unless it's a custom service file your relying on, the service has been re-named.
Unfortunately, that's not where my problem lies. I was aware of the renaming issue and had acted accordingly.
Still looking for solutions.
S.

CUP Process - Superuser Access -- Assignment of Firefigter Role

Hi Everyone,
we configured the superuser access process in CUP and the assignment of the user to a firefighter ID works...
However, the person can not use the firefighter since the required role "/VIRSA/Z_VFAT_FIREFIGHTER" is not assigned.
Is there any way how to automatically assign that Firefighter Role to the user? Obviously the process is quite useless otherwise
Thanks
Edited by: Gert_2010 on Sep 17, 2010 3:24 PM
Edited by: Gert_2010 on Sep 17, 2010 5:08 PM

Hi Thanks for your answer,
I understand that you can set for which request type you can set the default roles... but you can not do it on role level...
In our scenario:
Request Type: is set to All --> since we have a role ("General") that we want to assign to EACH user that is created in the system!
Therefore, I can not change the "Request Type" Setting to the Firefighter Process, since then the role "General" is not provisioned to all users anymore... If I just add the "Firefighter" Role, EVERYONE will get the Firefighter role as well...
(I am aware that this is not a big risk since the user ID must also be mapped to a Firefighter ID, however it is not really a nice solution)....
Regards

CUP UWL and HR assignement issues

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for