Excluding & Including of STO

Dear All,
In my Scenario I created the Independent requirement of my finish product in Plant 1000.
Now i have depot 1001 where the material is received against stock transfer order created by depot on Plant 1000.
After MRP & production material comes in stock .
Now for consumption of Independent Requirement i am using BADI, (Indicator 4) which will consume my independent requirement .
So this is inclusion of STO for consumption of Independent requirement
Now i want exclude STO in MRP if independent requirement is not there for any finish material.
So When i see MD04 , STO should not create Planning file enrty if In. Req. is not there.
I don't want any planed order against STO during MRP, so exclusion of STO during MRP

Hi,
This badi will prevent the demand being considered, but as with most enhancements you will have to put some IF conditions, so that only if it meets a certain criteria it processes the badi, in this case only if it meets your criteria, you exclude the STO as a demand for MRP, if it does not meet your need, then allow STO to flow in as a demand & then the Independent requirement will be consumed based on your other badi.
Hope the above clarifies.
Regards,
Vivek

Similar Messages

OBIEE 11g How to Exclude/Include Multiple columns on BI Report at Run Time

OBIEE 11g How to Exclude/Include Multiple columns on BI Report at Run Time

Exclude:
you Can exclude columns in either Table view or pivot table view by placing those columns in Excluded section but you will notice that it will appear in bi server parsed sql query.
Not sure you were asking about runtime??
would you please explain your question!!
Thanks
NK
Edited by: DNK on May 8, 2013 9:48 PM

DLU, Excluded/Included Users List

Hi,
we have problems using the "Excluded/Included Users Lists"-feature of DLU
policies.
This s what we are trying to do: Most of our ZCM-managed workstations should
allow all eDirectory accounts to login; so we have a DLU policy without any
"Login Restrictions" assigned to those devices. So far it works fine.
Now we have one lab where only a subset of accouts should be allowed to
login. We assigned a DLU policy with "Login Restrictions" to those devices.
We want to put "Users" (=ALL accounts) into the "Excluded Users List" and a
eDirectory group into the "Included Users List". But this does not work -
some accounts could login, some not - but without any correlation to the
eDirectory group.
So for testing we simplified the scenario: only one single account is in the
"Excluded Users List" - does not work, the account still can login. (DLU
creates a local account which did not exist before the test.)
My question: Is something wrong with how we try to do this? Should this work
or is there a flaw in the idea?
(ZCM 11 SP1, Windows 7 workstations with Novell Client and ZCM Agent, no
Windows Domain)
Thanks,
Mirko

I know people use it, because Novell is looking at some specific issues
where certain loopback configurations cause it to not work.
This is why I wanted to get loopback entirely out of the picture.
On 2/16/2012 8:37 AM, Mirko Guldner wrote:
>
> Whatever I do or try - the results are totally unpredictable. Some Accounts
> can login, some not, without any correlation to accounts and groups in the
> "Included/Excluded Users List".
>
> What I really would like to know: Does somebody here use this feature, and
> it works?
>
> Thanks,
> Mirko
>
>
> Mirko Guldner wrote:
>
>>
>> I wasn't aware of the term "Loopback" in this context... but I guess you
>> are refering to what is called "Policy Conflict Resolution" in ZCC?
>>
>> I tested it again with "Device Only" for the assignment of the DLU policy
>> - no difference: the account in "Excluded Users List" still can login and
>> gets a local user created.
>>
>>
>> craig wilson wrote:
>>
>>> Check the Loop Backsettings on the Device.
>>> That can be important, even if there are not duplicate policies.
>>>
>>> On 2/13/2012 11:11 AM, Mirko Guldner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We have a total of 6 DLU Policies in the zone, including those only for
>>>> testing - none of them is assigned by user, all are assigned by device.
>>>>
>>>> We also checked the "Assigned Policies", "Inherited"-tab for user and
>>>> device, so I don't think there's possibly a problem multiple policies
>>>> assigned.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Mirko
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> craig wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Any Chance the User/Device combo is resulting in multiple DLU policies
>>>>> being assigned/inherited and the other DLU policy is the one logging in
>>>>> the user?
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/13/2012 8:40 AM, Mirko Guldner wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> we have problems using the "Excluded/Included Users Lists"-feature of
>>>>>> DLU policies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This s what we are trying to do: Most of our ZCM-managed workstations
>>>>>> should allow all eDirectory accounts to login; so we have a DLU policy
>>>>>> without any "Login Restrictions" assigned to those devices. So far it
>>>>>> works fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now we have one lab where only a subset of accouts should be allowed
>>>>>> to login. We assigned a DLU policy with "Login Restrictions" to those
>>>>>> devices. We want to put "Users" (=ALL accounts) into the "Excluded
>>>>>> Users List" and a eDirectory group into the "Included Users List". But
>>>>>> this does not work - some accounts could login, some not - but without
>>>>>> any correlation to the eDirectory group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So for testing we simplified the scenario: only one single account is
>>>>>> in the "Excluded Users List" - does not work, the account still can
>>>>>> login. (DLU creates a local account which did not exist before the
>>>>>> test.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My question: Is something wrong with how we try to do this? Should
>>>>>> this work or is there a flaw in the idea?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (ZCM 11 SP1, Windows 7 workstations with Novell Client and ZCM Agent,
>>>>>> no Windows Domain)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Mirko
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Craig Wilson - MCNE, MCSE, CCNA
Novell Knowledge Partner
Novell does not officially monitor these forums.
Suggestions/Opinions/Statements made by me are solely my own.
These thoughts may not be shared by either Novell or any rational human.

F110 - Exclude / Include vendors based on payment Amount in payment run

I have a requirement to make a vendor to appear in the exception list if the payment amount for the vendor (invoices are grouped together for payment) exceeds a certain limit. Can anyone explain me how can achieve this?
Eg:
Vendor A has 2 invoices of $1000 each which is due for payment
Vendor B has 5 invoices of $1000 each which is due for payment
Both vendor need to be paid using payment method A
The requirement is all vendors payments which exceeds $3000 must appear in the exception list.
That is for the above case if I execute the F110 proposal ran then Vendor A should be selected for payment and Vendor B should appear in the exception list.
Can this be achieved? Any suggestions?
I have managed to do the selection other way around (Making Vendor B selecting for payment and Vendor A appearing in the exception) by providing the minimum amount in payment method A configuration for specific company code. But that is not my requirement.

Hello,
why don't you try the Maximum amount instead?
Doesn't this cover your requirement?
Be careful, however, if the payment method is specified on the document and not derived automatically from the vendor master, then this will not work.
In this case, you could use a validation based on the payment amount.
kind regards,
George

Doubt Regarding Excluding & Including Holidays

Hello,
I have a table named 'Holiday_Master' it consists of all the dates that comes on weekends & other public holidays <i.e> basically it consists of list of holidays...
Now i want to find out that if i pass sysdate + 10 == 15-May-2011 ... ideally....but I want 10 days which have only 10 working days...

Try this:
with t as (
select trunc(sysdate, 'dd')+level-1 dt
from dual
connect by level <= (trunc(sysdate+20, 'dd'))-trunc(sysdate, 'dd')+1
select * from t
where to_char(dt,'D') < 6
and rownum <= 10The next 10 week days.
L.

USMT - exclude folder c:\Notes but include some specific files in it

Hi,
my name is Paul, I live in Belgium and I'm fairly new to MDT and USMT. We're doing some testing because we want to implement LTI deployments. Since two weeks I'm testing USMT5. I created a Capture User Data Task Sequence and it worked great. All non-windows
folders in the C-drive were copied, all Favorites etc. Even the restore worked! So I was happy. :-) But one non-windows folder in the C:-drive is C:\Notes. This folder is almost 1GB and I only need four small files. I read all information I could find on the
internet but I didn't find any information or examples for my case. Most examples include a folder and exclude some files in it, but I want it the other way around !
Could you help me? So I want to exclude c:\Notes (and all the subfolders) and include c:\Notes\Data\names.nsf, c:\Notes\Data\bookmark.nsf, c:\Notes\notes.ini and c:\Notes\Data\username.id .
This is one of the versions I tried.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<migration urlid="http://www.microsoft.com/migration/1.0/migxmlext/mignotes">

<component type="Documents" context="System">
<displayName>Exclude Notes</displayName>
<role role="Data">
<rules>
<Exclude>
<objectSet>
<pattern type="File">C:\Notes\* [*]</pattern>
</objectSet>
</Exclude>
<include>
<objectSet>
<pattern type="File">C:\Notes\Data\ [bookmark.nsf]</pattern>
<pattern type="File">C:\Notes\Data\ [names.nsf]</pattern>
<pattern type="File">C:\Notes\Data\ [*.id]</pattern>
<pattern type="File">C:\Notes\ [notes.ini]</pattern>
</objectSet>
</include>
</rules>
</role>
</migration>

I believe the XML is case-sensitive, so try <exclude> instead of <Exclude>. Or you could try putting the exclude block after the include block.

Sales Order ATP should exclude the stock of a particular st. loc

Hi,
At Sale order creation, ATP check should exclude a particular Sto Location,
Suppose we have Sto Loc 001, 002, 003, 004 & 005, we want to reserve some stock for the next year, so we identify one storage location say 005 and move some stocks to this storage location. Now when the sales people are creating Sales order, the ATP check should exculde stocks from this Storage Location (the stocks in this sto loc should not be considered in ATP).
But for all other purpose like MRP this should be visible. We want the stock to be in unrestricted area in this Sto Loc.
Request you all to propose a feasible solution either through User exit or some configuration.
Thanks in advace,
Navin

Hi All,
Thanks a lot for all the replies, I found in the storage location table T001L, a field ``DISKZ`` settings called ``Storage location MRP indicator`` the details are as follows Storage location MRP indicator
that you use to exclude storage locations from material requirements planning at plant level.
If you do not set this indicator, stock, requirements, and receipts are included in MRP at plant level.
Use
You can exclude storage locations from MRP at plant level in one of two ways:
By excluding storage location stock from MRP
If storage location stock is excluded from MRP at plant level, no receipts for this storage location will be created in the planning run.
By planning storage location stock separately
If storage location stock is planned separately, the storage location is replenished with goods if the stock falls below the reorder point.
Has any one tried this and does this meets the requirement.
Thanks in advance,
Navin Shinde

STO (stock transport Order) posting: ATP and inventory impact

Dear All.
ATP configuration "OVZ9" gives you one checkbox to include or exclude purchase orders from ATP. "Incl.purchase orders".
In general we do want to include these for ATP, but this also includes STO documents. In some cases we do not wan to include the STO.
Is there a way to not include the inbound STO as a receipt in ATP for a plant, but include purchase orders?
If not through ATP configuration, then possibly through the document setup or posting? Wondering if we make a copy of the UB to a ZB and can exclude ZB from ATP or have it post to blocked stock or some other way so this type of STO does not impact ATP?
Many thanks!

That's a good idea. Thank you.
If it works we could post the STO's we want to exclude to a different storage location. We'll check and see if this excludes the receipts from ATP.

Can U Think of Any Situation Where U Find VENDOR Info. Populated for a STO?

Hi,
Can you think of any situation where you will find VENDOR information populated for a STO moving stock from a Plant to Store under the same company code?
I got an error ("Enter goods for vendor XXXX only") and this was triggered by the fact that one STO had vendor information in the delivery document. The outcome of this was that every STO beneath this STO could not be GR, but every STO before and including the STO were GR without any issues....
Your response is higly appreciated..
Thanks

SegeTx,
I am not sure exactly what you mean when you say "Vendor information populated for an STO". Is this a UB STO?
Tell me exactly what transaction you are performing, and the data you are entering, when you get the GR error.
Generally, when you set up master data for a STO, you have to assign a vendor to the plant. It is possible that somehow the source plant has become un-assigned from the vendor. WB03, clik past any warnings, enter the plant. In the upper right corner, there should be a vendor. If nothing is there, then you have to re-assign the vendor to the source plant. MK02 enter the vendor you wish to assign to the plant, and the purch org you should use for the STOs. Execute. Select extras > addl purch data. enter the plant. Save.
Best Regards,
DB49

Exclude single WBS in a Report

Hi Experts,
I'm trying to exclude an WBS from a Cost report, using the multiple selection but it's not working.
I would like to see all the planned cost of the project excluding all those cost under a specific WBS.
Can anybody help me? Thanks!

Hi,
I have tested it, and have some finding, let me share with you:
Suppose we have following heirarchy:
TAD-AZ10-01.01
TAD-AZ10-01.02
TAD-AZ10-01.03
TAD-AZ10-01.03.01
TAD-AZ10-01.03.01.001
TAD-AZ10-01.03.02
TAD-AZ10-01.04
TAD-AZ10-01.05
TAD-AZ10-01.05.01
TAD-AZ10-01.05.01.01
I have checked and found that in SLR reports:
Case 1: if we want to exclude TAD-AZ10-01.03.01.001, then we have to
put the range as TAD-AZ10-01.01 to TAD-AZ10-01.05 &
exclude as TAD-AZ10-01.03, TAD-AZ10-01.03.01, TAD-AZ10-01.03.01.001
o/p will be:
TAD-AZ10-01.01
TAD-AZ10-01.02
TAD-AZ10-01.03.02
TAD-AZ10-01.04
TAD-AZ10-01.05
TAD-AZ10-01.05.01
TAD-AZ10-01.05.01.01
Case 2: if we want to exclude TAD-AZ10-01.05, then we have to
put the range as TAD-AZ10-01.01 to TAD-AZ10-01.05 &
exclude as TAD-AZ10-01.05
o/p will be:
TAD-AZ10-01.01
TAD-AZ10-01.02
TAD-AZ10-01.03
TAD-AZ10-01.03.01
TAD-AZ10-01.03.01.001
TAD-AZ10-01.03.02
TAD-AZ10-01.04
Means: In SLR reports if we want to exclude single WBSE then its parent should also be excluded.
Exception: If the larger limit value of the range is excluded (in eg:TAD-AZ10-01.05), then it will be excluded including its complete below hierarchy.
In, CN41we have to follow same above process but it will give case 1 o/p as:
TAD-AZ10-01.01
TAD-AZ10-01.02
TAD-AZ10-01.03
TAD-AZ10-01.03.02
TAD-AZ10-01.04
TAD-AZ10-01.05
TAD-AZ10-01.05.01
TAD-AZ10-01.05.01.01
Whereas, In CN41n, simply give the project definition and use multiple selection to exclude the required WBSE, and it will be excluded from the report. Nothing else is needed.
Well, i also didn''t know this until now.
Regards,
Harsh.

Exclude condition from sales order when minimum vale not reached

Hello,
what would be the best way to exclude/include the freight cost condition from sales order when minimum order value is not reached?
Thanks and best regards
L

Hi,
If you want to be it should be automatically then follow what RAM KI suggested, but without much more work you want do it manually then do as suggested below
Use the field USAGE at header >> under Sales tab
Create table with combination of Sales orgz and usage fileld and generate table
Assign this generated table to access sequence which is used in your frieght condition
Configure two usages as FRIEGHT include and FRIEGHT Exclude
Maintain condition record for the frieght condition with above combination
Now when you create sales order go header level and select usage as you select usage system will pull values from condition record for frieght.
kapil

Serial nos not to appear only for STO delivery

Hi All,
We have set up serialziation for Finished products. We have set up the serial no. profile so that serial no. entry is mandatory during delivery (only).
Now the client doesnt want the serial nos. to appear for deliveries created for stock transfer process.
How can this be done?
Can we set up some contol the the delivery type level?

Hi,
There is no such direct solution for control serial number assignment on basis of delivery,but I think still we can fulfill this requirement.
In OIS2
For serialization procedure maintain serial usage none or optional,so it will not be mandatory/required
Then now incompleteness procedure is based on delivery document type and delivery document item
So through this you can make it mandatory for required delivery delivery type/item and exclude it from STO
Kapil

Exclude storage location from Availability check

Hi,
We have to exclude 4 storage location out of 46 storage locations from availability check in sales order processing.
Please advice how to do it.
We can not use MRP area and MRP Groups to control this because of certain reasons.
Regards,
Avnish

Please check this..
spro...material management....consumption based planneng....planning...define storage location MRP...
Here give plant name and enter...
Against every storage location you ll have indicators for excluding,including the stock....
hope this clarifies..
For material availablity check in production order,
1. you need to delete the storage loation in OX09 (it is possible If no stock)
2. Or you need to transfer post the materials to a storage location xxxx which you can name as Blocked storage location...
F Y I....In OVZ9 you can exclude all the storage locations which is not your reequirement..
katrthick
Edited by: karthick PP on Mar 26, 2009 12:40 PM

Using time machine to backup Logic Projects

Hi
I was wondering if it is possible to use time machine to backup my Logic Projects. I have a seperate internal drive that I use to keep all my user data on, like my Logic projects. I want to use time machine to back up these projects onto a external firewire drive.
Can timemachine only backup your systems drive and therefore I would need to have my Logic projects based stored on it?

Yes - time machine can back up any drive. I am using 3 drives: system drive, a USB2 drive for Time machine backups and a firewire 800 drive for Logic Studio projects, instruments, samples, audio, etc. TM backs up my system and FW drives to the USB drive.
Time machine options (in system preferences) allow you to exclude/include drives so you just need to set it to include your second internal drive.
The only thing I'm not sure of is whether this effects the loop browser. Oddly, when I was experimenting with using aliases for Apple loops, Logic actually found the TM backup files when it couldn't locate the original GB loops! After some file moving and index deleting I cleared all loops but now I have duplicate entries again in Logic - possibly due to TM, but I have not verified this.
-Scott

Process controlled workflow - SC process schema evaluation

Hi experts,
at the moment I'm using the n-step item level approval in SRM 5.0.
We are implementing SRM 7.0. With the new process controlled workflow I'm not sure how to
implement the logic of our "old" system.
Depending on category and item value the SC item has to be approved by 0 - 7 users.
I've created an event which finds a Z-process schema via FM.
In the FM I've tried to change the process schema (debugger) for one SC item.
But the schema has been changed for all items.
Is it possible to use different process schemas for items?
When yes how can I set the schema e.g.
item 10 schema1
item 20 schema1
item 30 schema2
item 40 schema1
Thanks in advance for your inputs!
Regards
Stefan

Hi,
Schema Evaluation is document header level.
There are 2 ways for implementation.
1. Schema Evaluation returns Schema name. For example, 1 step approval, ... 7 step approval
2. 1 Fixed Schema and 7 level evaluations. 1 Schema has 7 approval steps and each evaluation returns true or false.
You have to implement GET_AREA_TO_ITEM_MAP method of Agent BADI to exclude/include items.
BTW. If you set workflow framework as Application-Controlled Workflow, your old workflow logic works without any change.
Regards,
Masa

Excluding & Including of STO

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for