FM structure and derivation strategy

Hi,
I make commitment item hierarchy in Funds Management.
Our customer want to divide all the expenditure commitment items on direct and indirect expenditure.
So we have, for example, the same item u201CHR expenditureu201D in two sections u201Cdirect expenditureu201D and u201Cindirect expenditureu201D.
As usual one commitment item is matched with one G/L account. But here originally the G/L account u201CHR expenditureu201D for posting is the same for both items.
Can anyone tell, if itu2019s possible to leave field u201CCommitment itemu201D blank in a G/L account?
I want to make two different commitment items. And depending on other account assignments (cost center, for example), derive one or another commitment items when posting?
Best wishes
Irina

Hi Ira,
First of all it's possible. Further, the logic of derivation of FM address is looking first on the master data, but then eventually goes to FMDERIVE framewrok, where you can create a rule to overwrite the previously defined values for FM objects.
Regards,
Eli

Similar Messages

SAP Netweaver Portal - Folder structure and report publishing strategy

Hi gurus,
I'm working on a project in which we are publishing BW reports in SAP Netweaver Portal (prior to this, we were using SAP Bex Browser) organizing it by Department (workset, 2nd lvl of navigation), Business Processes (workset, 3rd lvl of navigation) and "iview types" (transactions, queries, dashboards and so on). On 1st level we have a workset simply called "Reports".
For each PFCG role we have on BW (ABAP Server), we created a portal role and defined which of the higher navigation tiers is visible to users (delta-linking the top level navigation worksets to the portal role and setting visible accordingly) and then we assigned Portal roles to the appropriated Group (PFCG role) so all users that have access to certain PFCG role can have access to the corresponding Portal role.
For example:
In BW (ABAP) we have a PFCG Role: Sales PMR Analysis - Administrator, which grants access to Sales Infoproviders, queries and data for PMR analysis. The user that have access to it, should be able to see:
|Reports|
|Sales Administration|
v PMR Analysis
> Web Queries
> Transactions
> Dashboards
> Workbooks
In Portal we create a workset that has: "Reports" and under it, all Departments (Sales Administration, Financial, Services, Human Resources and so on) set as "not visible". We create a Portal role called PMR Analysis and add the Report/Departments workset, set Sales Administration as visible and add worksets/folders named PMR Analysis, Web queries, Transactions, etc, and all the corresponding iviews under it.
If we assign this new Portal role to the Group of the corresponding PFCG role, the user will see exactly as the example from above.
Pros: The users have a clean view of the reports he/she has access.
Cons: The users doesn't have a clear view of what is available in BW so he can request access. There might be some useful report lost in on of the hundreds of BW roles that he doesn't know it exist.
One of the options would be to grant visibility to ALL departments, business processes and iviews in Portal and let PFCG security roles control user access, but that might be confusing to have an overwhelming amount of links, making it hard to find what the user needs, specially during first access. Not to mention possible security breaches.
So, I'd like to know how other consultants are defining this kind of folder structure and report publishing strategy in Portal. Ideally we would like to be able to have:
- Visibility of all existant reports even those that the user does not have acess (so he can learn that it exist and request access)
- Clean view of reports, segmented by department and business processes.
- Possibility to search for reports, even for those that the user does not have access.
I'd appreciate if you guys can share your experience on this.
Thanks in advance.
Leandro

Cons: The users doesn't have a clear view of what is available in BW so he can request access. There might be some useful report lost in on of the hundreds of BW roles that he doesn't know it exist
This is not a refutation: your BW developers/consultants should be able to write reports, which points you in case of insufficent backend rights. EP is not designed to be familiar with ABAP security concept and cant take any influence at it.
One of the options would be to grant visibility to ALL departments, business processes and iviews in Portal and let PFCG security roles control user access, but that might be confusing to have an overwhelming amount of links, making it hard to find what the user needs, specially during first access. Not to mention possible security breaches.
Yes, bad idea.
- Visibility of all existant reports even those that the user does not have acess (so he can learn that it exist and request access)
As you already wrote on your own, this would be not good
- Clean view of reports, segmented by department and business processes.
- Possibility to search for reports, even for those that the user does not have access.
This is not covered by SAP, if you wanna provide that, develop it on your own.
cheers

Adding Partner field in Derivation Strategy

Hello Sapians,
I am trying add the Partner field (Forwarding Agent) to the derivation Strategy from the Invoice and not from the Sales Order.
I was able to find the Forwarding Agent field in PAPARTNER Table. So I created the field in KEA5, update the structure of Operating Concern with this field.
But I am looking for the table (not VBPA) which has the Invoice details where I can add that in the Derviation Strategy. Do we have any table?
Please let me know if I need to use the enhancement to acheive this (Could you please give the steps to do this?).
Thank you,
-Harter.

Hi Ajay,
Couple of questions
1. How do I identify which field (table) has this value (Forwarding agent), so that I can create the WWXXX field. I found SPDNR from PAPARTNER table but I am not sure if that is the right table and the right field to create Characteristic on this field. So could you please tell me what is process to find the right table where the Forwarding Agent value is updated in the billing documents?
2. I could not find the KDAUF field in the enhancement Source fields but I was able to find the ARTNR field, my question is why we have to make ARTNR as Source field and the WWXXX or SPDNR (in this case) will be Target field? Does that need to be other way round? Sorry for my ignorance.
Thank you for all your help.
-Harter.

Derivation Strategy for Budget Addresses

Hi, we are using budget structure and have created a derivation strategy rule to define the assignments of posting addresses to budget
addresses. May I know what is the table names where all rule values are stored so that we can extract all the information stored to be use in customised program. Is there any function module that can be use to extract all the maintain values? Please assist. Thanks. Vincent

Hi,
The tables are dynamic, i.e. they are created with a generation of the rule. You can view the name of the tables by going to the derivation strategy transaction, then Menu - Extras - Overview. You will see all the relevant tables. There is no standard function to extract the values from these tables, but you can easily create your own.
Regards,
Eli

Need help understanding Time Capsule file structure and how to get it back

I have the original Time Capsule on which I backup both my Mac Pro and my wife’s Macbook. When Snow Leopard came out, I successfully used the ‘Restore from Time Machine’ feature on my Mac Pro so I know it has worked. However, my wife’s MacBook harddrive died the other day and I was trying to do the ‘Restore from Time Machine’ and all it would find was a backup from April (when I put her in a new larger drive). Time Machine would not find any backup files newer that April. She stated that she had seen the the Time Machine backup notices regularly and as recent as the day the haddrive died (Nov. 23) so I figured that I should have no problem. Here is what I have found in my trouble shooting and what leads to my questions below.
This is the file structure I found: (note that our ID’s are ‘Denise’ and ‘John’)
*Time Capsule* (the drive as listed in my Finder window sidebar under ‘shared’)
>Folder called ‘Time Capsule’ (when logged in as either ‘Denise’ or ‘John’)
>>Denise Sparsebundle
>>>Backup of Denise’s iBook (mounted image)
>>>>Folder called ‘Backups.backupdb’
>>>>>Folder called ‘Denise’s iBook
>>>>>>Single folder with old April backup (not the right files)
>>John Sparsebundle
>>>Backup of John’s Mac Pro (mounted image)
>>>>Folder called ‘Backups.backupdb’
>>>>>Folder called ‘John’s Mac Pro’
>>>>>>Folders containing all my backup files
>Folder Called ‘Denise’ (if logged as ‘Denise’)
>>Denise’s Sparsebundle (a disk image)
>>>Backup of Denise iBook (the mounted image. Name from old machine)
>>>>Backups.Backupdb
>>>>>Denise’s iBook (Contains the backup I need)
>Folder Called ‘John’ (if logged in as ‘John’)
>> (empty)
For some reason, my wife’s backup files are stored within a folder located at the top level of the Time Capsule drive called ‘Denise’, however, mine are within a folder called ‘Time Capsule’ which is at the same level as the ‘Denise’ folder.
For some reason, when trying to use Time Machine to recover, it bypasses the top level ‘Denise’ folder which contains the correct files and goes into the ‘Time Capsule’ folder and finds the outdated backup files.
I would assume that both my backup files and my wife’s should be at the same level of the Time Capsule.
I was eventually able to use Migration Assistant to recover the files after installing a fresh OS and mounting the correct Sparsebundle image.
So, my question, how do I get this fixed so that if I have to recover a drive with Time Capsule, it will find the correct files.
Sorry for the long post and thanks in advance for any help.

John Ormsby wrote:
What I was trying to determine is why different backups for one particular machine are located at different file structure levels on my Time Capsule and why the most resent one for that machine is at a different level that for my other machine. Also, what is the correct level that both machines backups should be at.
well John, first can you clarify if you are on 10.4.8 as your profile suggests ? if so, i'm wondering how you can use TM at all because TM was introduced with Leo. if you're not on 10.4.8, please update your profile. if you could, please also indicate details of your machine such as available RAM, processor, etc.
second, what OS is your wife's machine running ?
third, i frankly don't know too much about TM's file structure or if there indeed is such a thing as the correct one. however, i do know that it is best to leave TM to do its thing (as long as it's working). FWIW, though off-topic, you may want to have a look at this read for further information.
last but not least, i see TM backups to my TC only as a part of my backup strategy. the backbone of my strategy is to create bootable clone of my startup disk(s) using e.g. Carbon Copy Cloner on a regular basis. while TM is capable of doing a full system restore, i don't trust it as much as a working clone. i use TM to retrieve a file i accidentally trashed a week ago but you cannot boot from a TM backup if your startup disk goes belly up.
If I have missed this information in either the FAQs or the Troubleshooting article, I would greatly appreciate being pointed to it .
i expect you didn't miss anything and i'm sorry you didn't find any help there. perhaps if Pondini (author of the FAQ and troubleshooting user tips) reads this thread, you will get the necessary advice on the file structure and more besides.
good luck to you !

FM DERIVATION STRATEGY

Hello Guru's,
I am presently configuring public sector accounting for my client, can anyone advice me the best way to derive plant maintenance work order and business area assigned to cost centres. I have done my cost centre to cost centre derivation.
Thank you

Hi,
I don't quite understand your question... I showed you the way to read the data from your PM order in order to get FM objects derived. I also pointed out that if your cost centres are linked to business areas, business area will appear in FMDERIVE structure and you can base a rule on this info if you want. If your PM order is linked to a cost centre, then you will have the full chain of information flowing to FMDERIVE. Just don't forget to activate integration between PSM-FM and PM.
Regards,
Eli

Derivation Strategy year specific ?

HI,
In FM I have two Derivation Strategy, because i am moving from Former to BCS,
for swich over period and for adjustment I need to maintain old as well new Derivation strategy in System,
How I maintain it year specific? Or is there any other option to control both ?
So that there will be no clash between 02 Der Strategy?
Because i am swiching to BCS from 01 period of coming new Fiscal year.
Thanks
Nilesh

Hi,
Create a new derivation rule with valid from date as 01.04.2010, which will limit the earlier derivation rule till 31.03.2010 automatically
Until and unless you maintain the next derivation rule with a future date, the 2nd rule will be valid from 01.04.2010.
Thanks,
Srinu

Derivation strategy for each regional office

Hi All,
We activated Budget Availability control at Head Quarters. One of regional office is not having budget so they dont want budget control. If i am not entering budget in FMBB transaction then system throwing error for regional office. How i can do control exception for particular regional office. We are maintaining one company code for all Regional offices.
Regards,
sree

Hello,
Is ot possible for you to identify the regional office based on the budget address?
If yes, you should create a specific tolerance profile without any AVC control (100% tolerance, no warning, no error message) ; in addition to the tolerance profile you already defined with controls.
You can use a derivation strategy for tolerance profiles ( target field as TOLPROF) : if the posting is done for the regional office, the derivation strategy for tolerance profile will call the tolerance profile without any control and no messages will be sent to the user.
I hop it helps.
Helene

Derivation Strategy for PO retention Scenario

Dear Expert,
Dystem is showing an error Document line item 000 contains no clearing information when we try to post invoice in MIRO for retention PO.
Can you please suggest the appropriate derivation strategy for PO retention case ?
What should be the commitment item for retention GL account ?
If we use it as real commitment item for Retention GL account, it will post to other Commitment item which will not depict the correct result of Fund utilization.
Regards,
Prad Pat

Dear Eli,
We have implemented notes 2097766 on Dev client as part of program error but issue still remained. So as per note 171883 we have customized the message FICUSTOM100 9 (from error to warning) in transaction OBA5 for online posting. Now there is no error and document posted succesfully. Also we have also posted all payments including retention amount, system shows correct payment history in the FM documents.
Do we need to implement note 2097766 as the program error mention in this note ?
Regards,
Prad Pat

Define Derivation Strategy for Control Objects - Value Not Transport

I created Rules Value in Define Derivation Strategy for Control Objects (SPRO). Then, I perform the below steps for Transport the Request to other client.
1. Select Derivation Strategy name, Table View > Transport
2. Select Request Number
3. Click Include in Request, then save
4. Go to the Steps in Logical Order, Extras > Transport
5. Select Request Number and back to SPRO screen
After SCC1, there is only Derivation Strategy Name appeared but the rules value (Steps in Logical Order) is not appeared.
How can I transport the Rule Value?
Regards
Ton

Hi,
When you are in the derivation transaction and select to transport it, the system asks you whether you want the values to be transported as well. If you choose 'yes' your change request will include this information.
Regards,
Eli

Musings: MVC Front Controller/Command and Controller Strategy

Hi,
I am currently taking my first shot at implementing the Front Controller pattern, the Command and Controller Strategy flavor, in Java. When applying the pattern, my chosen point of focus is achieving as much isolation as possible of Client-specific implementation details from the rest of the framework (Web-based framework Clients, Swing-based framework Clients, queueing-based framework Clients, etc.) However, I am running into a lot of (apparent?) inconsistencies when it comes to CCS discussions "out there", so I have a feeling that perhaps I have misunderstood the Front Controller/Command and Controller Strategy pattern. Maybe the MVC gurus out there would have some thoughts on the matter.
My issues:
1.) Some CCS discussions seem to assign View presentation (sometimes called "dispatch", or "rendering", or "forwarding"?) to an ApplicationController. It seems puzzling to me, since only a concrete FrontController should include any knowledge of a concrete View structure. Shouldn't only a FrontController perform a logical-to-physical resource mapping, thus encapsulating knowledge whether a particular View is a separate, stand-alone Web page or a compound, argument-driven Swing object, and how to "present it" (by either redirecting to a Web page, or bringing a particular Swing object into the foreground)?
2.) Some CCS discussions seem to introduce Client-specific implementation details at the ApplicationController level, for example "HTTP requests" or "HTTP responses". It seems puzzling to me, since I feel that every part of the framework, except for a concrete FrontController, should be completely independent of the nature of a Client making a request. Instead, I created a generic Request object w/arguments and have a concrete FrontController translate any client-specific details into such a generic Request, before delegating to an ApplicationController.
3.) In the light of the (2.) above, I am not sure what constitutes a "response" from an ApplicationController back to a FrontController. It seems to me that the only universal "response" is a LogicalViewEnumeration: what View to present once a command has been completed, in many cases a "don't care", or a "show the requestor", or a "show a home page" (not every request has to result in changing a View). Well, perhaps a LogicalViewEnumeration as well as possible View arguments (?).
4.) In the light of the (3.) above, I suspect that any failures in Request delegation, or Command execution, should be perhaps propagated back to a FrontController by exceptions only, since, say, a WebFrontController might want to show a click-through error page, when a SwingFrontController might prefer to show an error dialog box, a LogicalErrorViewEnumeration might not make sense at all in the context of a particular Client, for example a queueing Client.
5.) In the light of the (4.) above, there is the question of an appropriate Request interface (into an ApplicationController), an appropriate Response interface (back into a FrontController), as well as an appropriate ViewArguments interface (into a FrontController and later into a View). The problem with generic Requests is that they can be created with nonsensical argument combinations, so shouldn't Requests be abstract and force proper arguments in concrete subclasses, through explicit constructors (in a sense, degenerate Commands)? The problem with Responses and ViewArguments is that... well, I have not found any formal discussion anywhere as to what those should look like. In most samples I have encountered, Responses include Client-specific implementation details, as mentioned in (2.), above.
6.) Some CCS discussions seem to introduce a Flow Manager at the ApplicationController level. It seems puzzling to me, since the whole point of the Command and Controller Strategy flavor seems to be centralization of business logic execution within self-contained Command objects. Shouldn't Requests get associated with Handlers (objects capable of actually carrying out Requests) and transformed into Commands inside an ApplicationController, thus Commands themselves return appropriate LogicalViewEnumeration back to an ApplicationController, back to a FrontController? Let's consider a ShowMyShippingAddress request coming into the framework: unless such a Request is eventually treated as a Command returning a particular LogicalViewEnumeration, it is suddenly a Flow Manager "acting" as a business logic driver. I guess the question here is: except for a few special cases handled by a particular ApplicationController (authentication, error conditions, default behavior, etc.), should flow management be considered stand-alone, or always delegated to Commands?
7.) Some CCS discussions seem to include an extra Request argument that specifies an ApplicationController to use (Request.Action="create", Request.Controller="account", Request.Username="me-me-me"), instead of using a Router inside of a FrontController to resolve to a particular ApplicationController through a generic action (Request.Action="createAccount", Request.Username="me-me-me"). I am not sure about the reason for such a design decision: why should a Client or a FrontController be allowed to concern itself with an implementation-level structure of the framework? Wouldn't any framework state -dependent ApplicationController resolution issues be best handled inside a Router, used by a FrontController to resolve [obtain] an appropriate ApplicationController, thus preventing Clients from ever forcing the framework into a possibly inconsistent behavior?
Any comments appreciated...
Thanks,
Gary

gniemcew wrote:
1.) Some CCS discussions seem to assign View presentation (sometimes called "dispatch", or "rendering", or "forwarding"?) to an ApplicationController. It seems puzzling to me, since only a concrete FrontController should include any knowledge of a concrete View structure. Shouldn't only a FrontController perform a logical-to-physical resource mapping, thus encapsulating knowledge whether a particular View is a separate, stand-alone Web page or a compound, argument-driven Swing object, and how to "present it" (by either redirecting to a Web page, or bringing a particular Swing object into the foreground)?It is hard to tell without reading the actual discussion, but my guess is that the posters were either conflating or being loose with the distinction between a FrontController and an ApplicationController. The former is (normally) intimately tied to the actual view being used (HTTP, Swing, etc.) whereas the ApplicationController typically is not. Both are involved in dispatch and event processing. The former normally renders a view whereas the latter does not.
gniemcew wrote:
2.) Some CCS discussions seem to introduce Client-specific implementation details at the ApplicationController level, for example "HTTP requests" or "HTTP responses". It seems puzzling to me, since I feel that every part of the framework, except for a concrete FrontController, should be completely independent of the nature of a Client making a request. Instead, I created a generic Request object w/arguments and have a concrete FrontController translate any client-specific details into such a generic Request, before delegating to an ApplicationController.Generic is fine. However, you can become generic to the point where your Request and Response interfaces are only acting as "marker" interfaces (think of java.io.Serializable). Writing a truly generic controller is possible, but personally, I have never found the effort justified.
gniemcew wrote:
3.) In the light of the (2.) above, I am not sure what constitutes a "response" from an ApplicationController back to a FrontController. It seems to me that the only universal "response" is a LogicalViewEnumeration: what View to present once a command has been completed, in many cases a "don't care", or a "show the requestor", or a "show a home page" (not every request has to result in changing a View). Well, perhaps a LogicalViewEnumeration as well as possible View arguments (?).A given service (if you ascribe to SOA) should be the fundamental unit in your architectural design. A good application controller would be responsible for determining how to dispatch a given Command. Whether a Command pattern is used or whether service methods are invoked directly from your FrontController, the ApplicationController should enforce common service aspects. These include authentication, authorization, auditing, orchestration, validation, logging, error handling, just to name a few.
The ApplicationController should ideally offload these aspects from a given service. The service would indicate how the aspects are to be applied (e.g., strong authentication required, x role required, fetching of existing process state, etc.) This allows services to be developed more quickly and to have these critical aforementioned aspects developed and tested centrally.
Your FrontController, in contrast, is responsible for transforming whatever input it is designed to receive (HTTP form data posts, XML-RPC, etc.) and ensure that it honors the contract(s) that the ApplicationController establishes. There are no cut-and-dry decisions though about when a given piece of functionality should be ApplicationController or FrontController. Take error handling. Should I emit just a generic ServiceException or allow the FrontController to decide what to do with a more concrete checked exception? (The FrontController, in any case, should present the error to the user in a manner dictated by the protocol it serves).
gniemcew wrote:
4.) In the light of the (3.) above, I suspect that any failures in Request delegation, or Command execution, should be perhaps propagated back to a FrontController by exceptions only, since, say, a WebFrontController might want to show a click-through error page, when a SwingFrontController might prefer to show an error dialog box, a LogicalErrorViewEnumeration might not make sense at all in the context of a particular Client, for example a queueing Client.See above. Yes. However, the ApplicationController could easily 'hide' details about the failure. For example, any number of exceptions being mapped to a generic DataAccessException or even more abstractly to a ServiceFailureException. The ApplicationController could indicate whether the failure was recoverable and/or populate information necessary to speed up production support (e.g., mapping exceptions to error codes and/or providing a primary key in an error audit log table for support to reference). A given FrontController would present that information to the user in the method that makes sense (e.g., error dialog for Swing, error page for HTML, etc.)
gniemcew wrote:
5.) In the light of the (4.) above, there is the question of an appropriate Request interface (into an ApplicationController), an appropriate Response interface (back into a FrontController), as well as an appropriate ViewArguments interface (into a FrontController and later into a View). The problem with generic Requests is that they can be created with nonsensical argument combinations, so shouldn't Requests be abstract and force proper arguments in concrete subclasses, through explicit constructors (in a sense, degenerate Commands)? The problem with Responses and ViewArguments is that... well, I have not found any formal discussion anywhere as to what those should look like. In most samples I have encountered, Responses include Client-specific implementation details, as mentioned in (2.), above.See comment on marker interfaces above. Nothing, however, stops you from requiring a certain sub-type in a given service method. You can still pass in the interface and validate the proper type by an assert statement (after all, in the vast majority of situations, the proper service method should get the proper instance of a given Request object). IMO, the FrontController would create the Command instance which would be passed to the ApplicationController which would dispatch and invoke the proper service method. A model response would be received by the FrontController which would then render the appropriate view.
gniemcew wrote:
6.) Some CCS discussions seem to introduce a Flow Manager at the ApplicationController level. It seems puzzling to me, since the whole point of the Command and Controller Strategy flavor seems to be centralization of business logic execution within self-contained Command objects. Shouldn't Requests get associated with Handlers (objects capable of actually carrying out Requests) and transformed into Commands inside an ApplicationController, thus Commands themselves return appropriate LogicalViewEnumeration back to an ApplicationController, back to a FrontController? Let's consider a ShowMyShippingAddress request coming into the framework: unless such a Request is eventually treated as a Command returning a particular LogicalViewEnumeration, it is suddenly a Flow Manager "acting" as a business logic driver. I guess the question here is: except for a few special cases handled by a particular ApplicationController (authentication, error conditions, default behavior, etc.), should flow management be considered stand-alone, or always delegated to Commands?There are distinct kinds of flow management. For example, orchestration (or BPM) is properly at either the service or ApplicationController layers. However, determining which view to display is properly at the FrontController layer. The ApplicationController should receive a Command (with a populate Request) and return that Command (with a populated Response). Both the Request and Response are fundamentally model classes (within MVC). The FrontController is responsible for populating the Request and/or Command and rendering the Response and/or Command. Generic error handling is usually centralized for both controllers.
gniemcew wrote:
7.) Some CCS discussions seem to include an extra Request argument that specifies an ApplicationController to use (Request.Action="create", Request.Controller="account", Request.Username="me-me-me"), instead of using a Router inside of a FrontController to resolve to a particular ApplicationController through a generic action (Request.Action="createAccount", Request.Username="me-me-me"). I am not sure about the reason for such a design decision: why should a Client or a FrontController be allowed to concern itself with an implementation-level structure of the framework? Wouldn't any framework state -dependent ApplicationController resolution issues be best handled inside a Router, used by a FrontController to resolve [obtain] an appropriate ApplicationController, thus preventing Clients from ever forcing the framework into a possibly inconsistent behavior?I am not 100% sure of what you are getting at here. However, it seems to be the method by which commands are dispatched. They are in effect allowing a FrontController to dictate which of n ApplicationControllers should receive the request. If we allow a FrontController to directly invoke a service method, then the ApplicationController is simply a centralized framework that should always be invoked for each service method (enforced via AOP or some other mechanism). If there is a single, concrete ApplicationController which handles dispatch, then all FrontControllers communicate directly with that instance. It is really just a design decision (probably based on your comfort level with concepts like AOP that allow the ApplicationController to exist solely behind the scenes).
I might have totally missed your questions, but those are my thoughts on a Monday. Best of luck.
- Saish

Entry payment request derivation strategy BL Account

Hello FM experts,
When I try to post an entry payment request the system shows me an error message which informs that I have to customize the derivation strategy BL account. I don´t know why I have to customize that customizing point because I already have customized the account determination for request and the systems seems that is working properly because it shows me the G/L account.
ok, I have customized the derivation strategy for BL account concerning budget ledger as the systems indicates me in the error message as this way:
Value type 54 and 60, commitment item and the general ledger account.
So at this moment I have customized the account determination for request and the derivation in the budgetary ledger. (transactions F850 and FMBLEXT)
The system does not work properly again and the error message is the same.
Note: I have activated the variant for budgetary level as 20: Spain.
Thank you very much in advance for all your help.
Ruben Lopez

Hello Mar,
This is the message:
Falta entrada Customizing p.ledger presupuestario
Nº mensaje: FMBLEXT001
Diagnóstico
Las parametrizaciones Customizing no se han definido correctamente.
Actividades en el sistema
El proceso se detiene.
Procedimiento
Verifique las parametrizaciones para la operación de contabilización en
    la actividad IMG Definir estrategia de derivación para cuentas LP.
IN ENGLISH:
Customizing entry missing for Budgetary Ledger
Message no. FMBLEXT001
Diagnosis
Customizing settings have not been properly defined.
System Response
Processing stops.
Procedure
Revise the Customizing for the posting process in the IMG activity
    Define Derivation Strategy for BL Accounts.
Thank you Mar for your time and effor.
Ruben

What are the logical structure and physical structure in oracle

what are the logical structure and physical structure in oracle and how can allocate a DB block size as default size is 8192?

From the Concepts Guide
http://download-east.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14220/toc.htm
The physical structures are:
Datafiles
Control Files
Redo Log Files
Archive Log Files
Parameter Files
Alert and Trace Log Files
Backup Files
The Logical Structures are:
Tablespaces
Oracle Data Blocks
Extents
Segments

What is diff b/w Include Structure and Append Structure at Database Level

Hi Experts,
Could you please let me know what is the main difference between .Include Structure and .Append Structure at SE11?
Thanks in advance and for good answer will give good points.
Sekhar

Hi,
1. Append Structures
Append structures can only be assigned to a single table.
Append structures are created in the custome rnamespace ( ZZ or YY)
In case of new versions of the standard table during upgrade, the append structures are automatically appended to the new version of the standard table
Append structures can not be used with cluster and pool tables
Append structures are created in transaction SE11. Display the standard table fields and press the Append structure button.
When you press the button, SAP sugests a name for the new append structure. After you has accepted the name,
a screen will be shown where you can enter the new fields.
Remember to activate.
2. Customizing Includes
Some of the SAP standard tables contains special include statements called Customizing includes. In contrast to Append structures,
Note that customizing includes are created by SAP, but the customer supply the fields for the include.
Customizing includes begin with CI_ and is part of the customer namespace
One Customizing include can be inserted into more than one table.
You can find Customizing includes in SE11 under structures.
Try to take a look at table RKPF which uses the Customizing include CI_COBL (In an IDES system). Next try to add a field to CI_COBL, and activate it. If you go back to table RKPF you will se that your new field has been added.
Regards,
Ferry Lianto

Fields missing in MPD report after change to structure and program

I have been working on a consistency report for transaction MPD.
I had created a structure in SE11 for handling the data. it was all working, but then i had to go and change the name of the fields in the structure. Now those fields are missing from the report.
When i step through the debugger, all the fields are being populated correctly, but these fields are not displayed on screen. if i change the field names back in the structure and change the code for populating these fields, they appear okay.
i have created a custom implementation within BAdi MPD_WKB_REPORTING.
i have checked the config and it all points to my Z Structure and Z Table Type. I have logged off and logged back on! made sure my code is saved and activated...
any ideas on how i can display these new fields names/values?
Just for clarity, the field name has changed. not the linked data type.

thanks for your response, however those notes and program have not done anything to assist my issue.
i have found the anwser now!
within the BAdi was a method i had to amend: IF_EX_MPD_WKB_REPORTING~GET_ALV_PARAMETERS
all fixed now!

FM structure and derivation strategy

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for