GR based IV flag not checked in PO

Hello,
I have checked the GR based IV flag in the vendor master record. However, when I create a PO the GR based IV flag is not flowing through to the PO. The flag remains unchecked in the PO.
Can someone please point what could be the issue?
Thank you.

Hi,
Please check the GR based IV flag checked or not in Inforecord. If not , you need to  tick in  inforecord. It will work. Try this out.
Regards,
abi

Similar Messages

  • Gr-based-IV flag not changable by SRM buyer

    Hi,
    We are on SRM 7, ECS. Our vendor masters in ECC do not have GR-based-IV flag ticked. When we create a SRM PO, the GR-based-IV is not ticket by default. The following are the default status of the 3 indicators in SRM PO by default:
    GR indicator: Ticked
    Invoice Expected: Ticked
    Confirmation based Invoice verification (this is GR-based-IV): Not ticked
    Now the buyer wants to enable the GR-based-IV indicator in the SRM PO, while keeping the GR indicator and Invoice Expected ticked. He is unable to so, since the field is grayed out.  Is this a SRM bug , since this is allowed in ECC PO  ( i.e. if we  directly an ECC PO)
    On similar lines, if the vendor master has u201CConfirmation based Invoice verificationu201D ticked and the SRM PO also has Confirmation based Invoice verification ticked, how the buyer can untick it while keeping the GR indicator and Invoice Expected as ticked.
    This SRM behavior is different from ECC behavior. Is this a bug and is there a note for it?
    Rgds
    sumendra

    Hi,
    you have told that in the vendor master in the ECC the Flag is not ticked.
    If the vendor has been replicated from ECC then in SRM also the tick will  not be there.
    Option 1
    if you want the GR Flag to be ticked .please do so in ECC and replicate the vendor in SRM
    Option 2.
    go to the supplier POWL .
    Select the supplier and tick the
    Confirmation based Invoice verification (this is GR-based-IV).
    Create Shopping cart PO will be created with flag ticked
    This SRM behavior is different from ECC behavior. Is this a bug and is there a note for it?
    No
    Regards
    G.Ganesh Kumar

  • Table to Know MIRO for mat. doc.(MIGO) incase of GR based IV not checked PO

    Hi,
    I need your help to know the logic for developing one report in the below situation.
    there is a Imported PO. GR Based IV is not checked.
    initially customs MIRO has done it,
    later inbound delivery taken,
    then MIGO 103 movement done,
    while doing 103 Mvt, system is asking commerical Inv No and Year.  I have given the customs MIRO No.
    later 105 mvt done. at this time inventory valuation and taxes and duties captured based on the Customs MIRO.
    At this time, i want to know the customs MIRO No. against GR No (i.e., Material Document No.)  Any table will provide this information.
    Regards,
    S Vasu

    Dear Ramana,
    Thanks for your reply. i already verified this EKBE table, it is giving only mateirla documents information, it is not giving any of the customs miro nos.
    Please advise any other tables will help us.

  • Block invoices for PO with no GR-based IV flag

    Hello SAP experts,
    I need your help with finding a way to block invoices for PO with no GR-based IV flag.  At our company, we treat service POs almost the same as material POs (to avoid receipt of service entry).  The only difference from material PO is that service PO does not have the flag for GR.  We customized our EBP to have this done.
    Now, accounting wants to automatically block all invoices associate with service POs.  In this case it would be a PO with no GR.  I tried LIV configuration but it is only for price, quantity and etc.  I also tried blocking with IR before GR but it didn't work because there is no GR.
    Is there a way to achive automatic invoice block in this case?
    Appreciate your help.
    -AT-

    Hi Annie,
    if the configuration doesn't help you enough, you would have to add some custom logic after the invoice has been created.
    Technically speaking, I believe there exists a business add-in (BAdI) where you could enter a piece of code which would after the invoice creation check the GR and block it if appropriate. Another implementation option would be a mini-workflow - there you would have a step which checks the GR existence and blocks the invoice.
    Hope this helps, I suggest talking to your local abap consultant for more details,
    -Mikko

  • How to populate the GR based Invoice Flag in PO.

    Hi,
      How to check the GR based Invoice flag for a purchase order.One solution we think of is flagging the G.R IV flag at vendor master level in xk03 (Purchasing data view ).Are there any SPRO level configurations to attain the same.
    Thanks.
    Rakesh.

    Hi,
    Look into
    SPRO->MM->Inventory Mgmt->Good receipt->For GR-Based IV
    Refer:
    Re: CAN GR/GI  BE REVERSED EVEN THOUGH DEBIT NOTE IS RAISED

  • OSB 10gR3 - Process WS-Security flag not working with PasswordDigest

    Hi,
    By Oracle documentation when you set the "process ws-security header" in security section of a proxy service, the proxy service act as an active intermediary and consume the ws-security header received in inbound messages. This feature works fine when you call the proxy service using WS-Security Username Token Profile PasswordText, but when you send Username Token with PasswordDigest I got the following error: +"weblogic.xml.crypto.wss.WSSecurityException: Unable to validate identity assertions"+
    I am using SoapUi to call the proxy with passwordDigest, WSS-Password Type option set to PasswordDigest.
    Proxy configured with:
    General tab -> WSDL based proxy service, this wsdl doesn't have ws-policy definitions inside.
    Transport tab -> Get all headers = Yes
    HTTP Transport tab -> HTTPS Required = No / Authentication = Basic
    Operation tab -> Enforce WS-I Compliance = not checked / Selection Algorithm = SOAP Body Type
    Message Content tab -> default settings
    Policy -> Added Auth.xml(predefined) policy to request policies.
    Security tab -> Process WS-Security header = Yes / Custom Authentication settings = none
    Error --->
    +<01/12/2009 09h34min55s BRST> <Error> <OSB Security> <BEA-387022> <An error ocurred during web service security inbound request processing [error-code: Fault, message-id: 6198860737666014185--de42214.12549f82d66.-7fdb, proxy: AlphaTests/MyProxy/Proxy/MyLogProxy, operation: null]+
    --- Error message:
    +<env:Envelope xmlns:env="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"><env:Header/><env:Body><env:Fault xmlns:wsse="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-secext-1.0.xsd"><faultcode>wsse:InvalidSecurity</faultcode>*<faultstring>Unable to validate identity assertions.</faultstring>*</env:Fault></env:Body></env:Envelope>+
    weblogic.xml.crypto.wss.WSSecurityException: Unable to validate identity assertions.
    +     at weblogic.wsee.security.wss.SecurityPolicyValidator.processIdentity(SecurityPolicyValidator.java:133)+
    +     at weblogic.wsee.security.wss.SecurityPolicyValidator.processInbound(SecurityPolicyValidator.java:77)+
    +     at weblogic.wsee.security.WssServerPolicyHandler.processInbound(WssServerPolicyHandler.java:54)+
    +     at weblogic.wsee.security.WssServerPolicyHandler.processRequest(WssServerPolicyHandler.java:30)+
    +     at weblogic.wsee.security.WssHandler.handleRequest(WssHandler.java:74)+
    +     at com.bea.wli.sb.security.wss.WssInboundHandler.processRequest(WssInboundHandler.java:155)+
    +     at com.bea.wli.sb.security.wss.WssHandlerImpl.doInboundRequest(WssHandlerImpl.java:201)+
    +     at com.bea.wli.sb.context.BindingLayerImpl.addRequest(BindingLayerImpl.java:257)+
    +     at com.bea.wli.sb.pipeline.MessageProcessor.processRequest(MessageProcessor.java:66)+
    +     at com.bea.wli.sb.pipeline.RouterManager$1.run(RouterManager.java:508)+
    +     at com.bea.wli.sb.pipeline.RouterManager$1.run(RouterManager.java:506)+
    +     at weblogic.security.acl.internal.AuthenticatedSubject.doAs(AuthenticatedSubject.java:363)+
    +     at weblogic.security.service.SecurityManager.runAs(Unknown Source)+
    +     at com.bea.wli.sb.security.WLSSecurityContextService.runAs(WLSSecurityContextService.java:55)+
    +     at com.bea.wli.sb.pipeline.RouterManager.processMessage(RouterManager.java:505)+
    +     at com.bea.wli.sb.transports.TransportManagerImpl.receiveMessage(TransportManagerImpl.java:371)+
    +     at com.bea.wli.sb.transports.http.HttpTransportServlet$RequestHelper$1.run(HttpTransportServlet.java:279)+
    +     at com.bea.wli.sb.transports.http.HttpTransportServlet$RequestHelper$1.run(HttpTransportServlet.java:277)+
    +     at weblogic.security.acl.internal.AuthenticatedSubject.doAs(AuthenticatedSubject.java:363)+
    +     at weblogic.security.service.SecurityManager.runAs(Unknown Source)+
    +     at com.bea.wli.sb.transports.http.HttpTransportServlet$RequestHelper.securedInvoke(HttpTransportServlet.java:276)+
    +     at com.bea.wli.sb.transports.http.HttpTransportServlet$RequestHelper.service(HttpTransportServlet.java:237)+
    +     at com.bea.wli.sb.transports.http.HttpTransportServlet.service(HttpTransportServlet.java:133)+
    +     at weblogic.servlet.FutureResponseServlet.service(FutureResponseServlet.java:24)+
    +     at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:820)+
    +     at weblogic.servlet.internal.StubSecurityHelper$ServletServiceAction.run(StubSecurityHelper.java:227)+
    +     at weblogic.servlet.internal.StubSecurityHelper.invokeServlet(StubSecurityHelper.java:125)+
    +     at weblogic.servlet.internal.ServletStubImpl.execute(ServletStubImpl.java:292)+
    +     at weblogic.servlet.internal.ServletStubImpl.execute(ServletStubImpl.java:175)+
    +     at weblogic.servlet.internal.WebAppServletContext$ServletInvocationAction.run(WebAppServletContext.java:3498)+
    +     at weblogic.security.acl.internal.AuthenticatedSubject.doAs(AuthenticatedSubject.java:321)+
    +     at weblogic.security.service.SecurityManager.runAs(Unknown Source)+
    +     at weblogic.servlet.internal.WebAppServletContext.securedExecute(WebAppServletContext.java:2180)+
    +     at weblogic.servlet.internal.WebAppServletContext.execute(WebAppServletContext.java:2086)+
    +     at weblogic.servlet.internal.ServletRequestImpl.run(ServletRequestImpl.java:1406)+
    +     at weblogic.work.ExecuteThread.execute(ExecuteThread.java:201)+
    +     at weblogic.work.ExecuteThread.run(ExecuteThread.java:173)+

    Eduardo,
    Yes, but the flag "Process WS-Security header" needs to be set to 'No' and I included a delete node to remove the wsse:Security element from header. Attaching Auth.xml predefined policy to my request operation, causes OSB to include the policy directive in my WSDL, but the PasswordText(see below).
    In Oracle security guide we have steps to configure PasswordDigest in the Oracle Service Bus Security Configuration using the WLS Console http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E13159_01/osb/docs10gr3/security/model.html#wp1062542
    My doubt is: Is this a bug? "Process WS-Security header" flag is supposed to work with PasswordDigest?
    My WSDL with WS-Policy statements after Auth.xml policy was configured.
    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <s2:definitions targetNamespace="http://alpha.tests.org" xmlns:s0="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/09/policy" xmlns:s1="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-utility-1.0.xsd" xmlns:s2="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/" xmlns:s3="http://alpha.tests.org" xmlns:s4="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/" xmlns:wsp="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/09/policy">
    <s0:Policy s1:Id="encrypt-custom-body-element-and-username-token">
    <wssp:Identity xmlns:wssp="http://www.bea.com/wls90/security/policy">
    <wssp:SupportedTokens>
    <wssp:SecurityToken TokenType="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-username-token-profile-1.0#UsernameToken">
    <wssp:UsePassword Type="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-username-token-profile-1.0#PasswordText"/>
    </wssp:SecurityToken>
    </wssp:SupportedTokens>
    </wssp:Identity>
    </s0:Policy>
    <wsp:UsingPolicy s2:Required="true"/>
    <s2:types>
    <xsd:schema elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://alpha.tests.org" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:impl="http://alpha.tests.org" xmlns:s0="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/" xmlns:s1="http://alpha.tests.org" xmlns:s2="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/" xmlns:wsdl="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/" xmlns:wsdlsoap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
    <xsd:element name="EchoRequest">
    <xsd:complexType>
    <xsd:sequence>
    <xsd:element name="send" type="xsd:string"/>
    </xsd:sequence>
    </xsd:complexType>
    </xsd:element>
    <xsd:element name="EchoResponse">
    <xsd:complexType>
    <xsd:sequence>
    <xsd:element name="response" type="xsd:string"/>
    </xsd:sequence>
    </xsd:complexType>
    </xsd:element>
    </xsd:schema>
    </s2:types>
    <s2:message name="echoRequest">
    <s2:part element="s3:EchoRequest" name="echoPartReq"/>
    </s2:message>
    <s2:message name="echoResponse">
    <s2:part element="s3:EchoResponse" name="echoPartResp"/>
    </s2:message>
    <s2:portType name="MyAlphaPort">
    <s2:operation name="echo">
    <s2:input message="s3:echoRequest" name="echoRequest"/>
    <s2:output message="s3:echoResponse" name="echoResponse"/>
    </s2:operation>
    </s2:portType>
    <s2:binding name="MyAlphaBinding" type="s3:MyAlphaPort">
    <s4:binding style="document" transport="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http"/>
    <s2:operation name="echo">
    <s2:input name="echoRequest">
    <s4:body use="literal"/>
    <wsp:Policy>
    <wsp:PolicyReference URI="#encrypt-custom-body-element-and-username-token"/>
    </wsp:Policy>
    </s2:input>
    <s2:output name="echoResponse">
    <s4:body use="literal"/>
    </s2:output>
    </s2:operation>
    </s2:binding>
    <s2:service name="MyAlphaBindingQSService">
    <s2:port binding="s3:MyAlphaBinding" name="MyAlphaBindingQSPort">
    <s4:address location="http://CLXSP0272:7001/MyAlphaService"/>
    </s2:port>
    </s2:service>
    </s2:definitions>

  • GR- based invoice verification not active

    Hi guys, need your help.
    I have a PO with Inv. receipt, GR-Based Inv and ERS flag activated. I also have these flag active in vendor master and in PIR. I am trying to post invoice via MRRL and i am getting the error "GR-based invoice verification not active". Not sure why??  i already checked it and flags were active since last few years and nobody made any changes since then. PO was created just last month.
    Any help be appreciated!

    Hi,
    In ERS PO invoice is not done... and take off the ERS indicator from the VN Master.
    Tick the GR IV in PIR and in PO,  GR IV , ERS and enter the Tax CODE.
    ERS is a cridit memo procedure.

  • GR Based INV flag set on Purchase Order

    Hello,
    We are on SRM 5.5 and R3 ECC 6.0 classic scenario. We want to swihtch off the GR Based Invoice flag which is maintained in de vendor master. Vendor has no info record or contract. When creating a PO directly in R3 the flag is also disabled on the PO. However, when we create a shopping cart, the system automatically creates the purchase req and when the purchaser creates the Purchase order the GR Based Inv. flag is set again ? Can anybody let me know how this is possible ?
    Thanks as eve for your help.
    Antoinette

    Hi Antoinette Stork,
    Here is the way we have achieved. I am not an ABAPer and hence providing you more concepts than code.
    01)  A custom program is written and is scheduled on hourly basis as a back ground job.
    02)  This program is executed after the BBP_VENDOR_SYNC is executed as a background job as well.
    03)  BBP_VENDOR_SYNC will bring the updates and new vendors from the R/3 back end.
    04)  This will bring the vendors with the confirmation flag set on SRM (no corresponding field exists on the R/3 side vendor master) and also will check the GR based invoice verification flag on (the corresponding field exists on the ECC vendor master).
    05)  After 15 minutes the custom program will read the BUT000 table for the total number of vendors changed or created between two successive jobs.
    06)  Then query on the VENMAP table to get the GUIDs of the corresponding vendors.
    07)  Within the custom program use the FMs
         BBP_BUPA_FRG0060_CHANGE  and
         BAPI_TRANSACTION_COMMIT
    to set the flags for
          goodsrec_confex = ' '  and
          GR_BASEDIV
    Sorry for being unable to provide you the code dump.  This is working perfectly fine for us.
    Also, we have used the badi "BBP_ECS_PO_OUT_BADI"  with the method "BBP_B46B_PO_OUTBOUND"  as a safety net as our invoice processing is two way match and we do not absolutely want the flags to be set to the R/3 PO.
      DATA: ls_bapi_poitem TYPE bbps_if_bapimepoitem_pi.
    Loop through the item details that gets passed to Backend*
      LOOP AT ct_bapi_poitem INTO ls_bapi_poitem.
    Clear the GR and GR-Based Invoice Verification Indicator.*
        CLEAR : ls_bapi_poitem-gr_ind,
                ls_bapi_poitem-gr_basediv.
        MODIFY ct_bapi_poitem FROM ls_bapi_poitem
               TRANSPORTING gr_ind gr_basediv.
      ENDLOOP.
    ENDMETHOD.
    Hope this helps,
    DV

  • GR based IV flag Update in PO

    Hi,
    Here is the situation.
    We have 2000 PO's are not update GR based IV flag. This is due to PIR's are not updated with GR based IV flag.
    Now we identified the PIR's and updated GR based flag. But In the PO's we cant able to update.
    These PO's already delivery completed.
    Please guide me how to Update this Indicator in PO's?
    Thanks,
    Sridhar

    hi, you've mentioned that "PO's already delivery completed" that means GRs are done for all these POs. You can not change GR based IV indicator after posting follow on docs.
    still check below OSS note which explains how and when you can change it (even after psoting of follow on docs like GR and IV)
    Note 550163 - Change of GR-based invoice verification indicator
    Also, if GRs are already done for these 2000 POs you should not worry about updating this indicator as main purpose of this indicator is to make sure that GR is done before posting Invoice and you already completed that.
    yogesh

  • GR based IV flag

    Hello,
    I have checked the GR based IV flag in the vendor master record their is no tick over selected.  However, when I create a PO the GR based IV flag is coming automaticlly . It should not come checked in case of this vendor.
    please advice.
    Thank you.

    Hi,
    Go to ME1L, input the material and vendor codes and execute.
    If there is an info record, system will populate the same.
    Regards,
    Siva

  • Correcting POs with GR Based IV Flag set

    We are on SRM 550 SP10 ECS. One of the bugs in the earlier SP level related to POs was
      GR Based IV is checked if GR is checked and IR is checked ignoring the master vendor record information related to this flag. This is fixed in Note 1010791. This will fix the new POs created after the note is applied. I am wondering if anybody knows of any z program which will unset the earlier POs (created before the note is applied) for the GR Based IV flag. With the flag set, we cannot enter the invoice before the Goods receipt.

    hi, you've mentioned that "PO's already delivery completed" that means GRs are done for all these POs. You can not change GR based IV indicator after posting follow on docs.
    still check below OSS note which explains how and when you can change it (even after psoting of follow on docs like GR and IV)
    Note 550163 - Change of GR-based invoice verification indicator
    Also, if GRs are already done for these 2000 POs you should not worry about updating this indicator as main purpose of this indicator is to make sure that GR is done before posting Invoice and you already completed that.
    yogesh

  • Do Not Check Uniqueness of Data in Write Optimised DSO

    Hello,
    I am working with write optimised DSO with already billion records in it. I have flag 'Do Not Check Uniqueness of Data' in Settings as checked(means it will surely not check for uniqueness of data). I am thinking of removing this flag off and activate the DSO again. I am willing to remove this flag as it will provide option of Req ID input in listcube on DSO and without this list cube will never return back with results.(I have to analyze aggregations)
    I tried removing this flag and then activate DSO in production system with 17 million records which took 5 mins for activation (index creation). So maths says for a billion records activation transport will take around 6 hrs for moving to Production.
    I am willing to remove this flag as it will provide option of Req ID input in listcube and without this list cube will never return back with results.
    Questions:
    How does this flag checks the uniqueness of record? WIll it check Active table or from the Index?
    To what extent DTP will slow down the process of subsequent data load?
    Any other factors/risks/precautions to be taken?
    Let me know if questions are not clea or further inputs are required from my side.
    Thanks.
    Agasti

    Hi,
    Please go through the site :
    /people/martin.mouilpadeti/blog/2007/08/24/sap-netweaver-70-bi-new-datastore-write-optimized-dso
    As far as your ques are concerned... i hope above blog will answer most of it , and if it does'nt please read below mentioned thread.
    Use of setting "Do Not Check Uniqueness of Data" for Write Optimized DSO
    Regards
    Raj

  • Rule based ATP is not working for Components

    Hi All,
    Our requirement is to do availability check through APO for Sales order created in ECC,so we are using gATP.
    Requirement: We are creating salesorder for BOM header (Sales BOM) and avaialbility check should happen for components i.e. Product avalaibility & Rule based substitution.
    Issue: Product availiabilty is working for components but rules based substituion is working,  mean Rules are not getting determind for components.
    Settings:
    - Header doesnot exist in APO and compnents do exist in APO
    - Availability check is not enabled for header item category and enabled for Item category for components
    - Rules have been created for Components in APO
    - Rule base ATP is activated in Check instructions
    We have also tried MATP for this i.e. PPM created in APO but still didn't get the desired result.
    If we create salesorder for the component material directly then Rule based ATP is happening, so for components Rule based ATP is not working.
    How do we enable enable Rulesbased ATP for components, i mean is there any different way to do the same.
    Thanks for help.
    Regards,
    Jagadeesh

    Hi Jagdeesh,
    If you are creating BOM in ECC and CIFing PPM of FG/Header material to APO, I think you need to CIF Header material, too, with material integration model.
    Please include header material in you integration models for material, SO and ATP check as well.
    For component availability check, you can use MATP; but for MATP, FG should be in APO. You need not to CIF any receipts of FG (stock, planned orders, POs etc), so that MATP will be triggered directly. Then maintaining Rules for RMs will enable to select available RMs according to the rule created.
    Regards,
    Bipin

  • Reference of 103 mat.doc. in  105 doc. , when GR based IV is not selected

    Hi,
    I required logic, to list out 103 material documents for which movt. 105 is not made , If GR based IV is not selected in PO.
    We know, each MIGO document has a reference document number. In case of 103 document, the reference document number is the same number In case of 105 document, the reference docu number is the document number of 103.
    But, the reference document number is blank, when GR based IV is not ticked in the Purchase order.
    I need some logic to find the reference of 103 document in 105 document for items without GR based IV.
    Best Regards
    Saravanan

    Hi,
    Does your PO history had been updated bu the 103 and 105 ? Please check , or the table EKBE,.
    Please check table mseg.
    Regards,

  • How to retrive new logical column based on flag values in table.

    Hi,
    i have two tables in rpd
    1.file table contains the coulmns------->date,file_count,record_count,cldm_stg,cmsa_stg,archive_stg
    2.rejection table columns---------> are same as above
    both have same common columns.my requirement is publish a dashboard like:
    date | land_files count |alnd_recordscount| target_files count|target_records count|Rejection filecount|rejection record count
    These report ineed retrive from those two tables.based on flag values.taget countcomes when all stg values set to ='y'
    i.e(cldm_stg='y' and cmsa_stg='y'and archive_stg='y') if not then it will be in rejection file.
    Please give solution how to achive my output.
    nQSError: 14026] Unable to navigate requested expression: Target_record:[DAggr(FILE_CONTROL.Target_record by [ FILE_CONTROL.FILE_NAME, REJECTED_FILES.FILE_NAME, REJECTED_FILES.NO_OF_ROWS, File_landing.NO_OF_ROWS, File_landing.FILE_LOAD_DATE] SB FILE_CONTROL)]. Please fix the metadata consistency warnings. (HY000)
    Edited by: user8767586 on Jan 12, 2010 4:29 AM

    Tanks for ypur reply .only two tables are there named as above.i taken file_control as a fact table.
    and i create one new tablecalled target in bmm layer taking logical source as file_control(fact table). and iset the where clause for the new table.and i create a new measure called target_file and target_records.in where clause my query is like
    dwbidb."".AUDIT_PROD.FILE_CONTROL.ARCHIVE_STATUS = 'Y' AND dwbidb."".AUDIT_PROD.FILE_CONTROL.CMSA_STATUS = 'Y' AND dwbidb."".AUDIT_PROD.FILE_CONTROL.LND_STATUS = 'Y' AND dwbidb."".AUDIT_PROD.FILE_CONTROL.SCRIPT_STATUS = 'Y' AND dwbidb."".AUDIT_PROD.FILE_CONTROL.STG_STATUS = 'Y'
    please tell me if this is right way to achive mt report. and tell me difference between fragmentation and whereclause.for my requrement i ahve to follow which method either fragmentation or whereclause.and in rpd there are no errors and warnings.but in answers i get a follwing error
    State: HY000. Code: 10058. [NQODBC] [SQL_STATE: HY000] [nQSError: 10058] A general error has occurred. [nQSError: 14026] Unable to navigate requested expression: TARGET_FILECOUNT:[DAggr(TARGET.TARGET_FILECOUNT by [ TARGET.FILE_NAME] SB TARGET)]. Please fix the metadata consistency warnings. (HY000)
    SQL Issued: SELECT TARGET.FILE_LOAD_DATE saw_0, TARGET.TARGET_FILECOUNT saw_1, TARGET.TARGET_FILECOUNT saw_2 FROM AUDIT_PROD ORDER BY saw_0.
    Please tell me to achive my report.
    Regards
    Edited by: user8767586 on Jan 12, 2010 5:21 AM
    Edited by: user8767586 on Jan 12, 2010 5:21 AM
    Edited by: user8767586 on Jan 12, 2010 5:24 AM

Maybe you are looking for