P2P fulfillment and Clearing rule interaction

Hi,
I am facing an issue related to Promise to Pay (P2P).
We are using FP2P1 to create P2P. The open items listed in FP2P1 creation screen appear to be sorted based on net due date (ascending), document number( ascending), amount (descending). The user selects the open items from the top and downward, until the promised amount is exhausted. When the payment is posted, the clearing sequence configured in the clearing variant is that first by the cash discount due day (ascending), division (ascending) and main transaction (ascending). Therefore, the payment would clear the items that not included in the P2P, however, the fulfillment is calculated based on the each P2P item's clearing status. For example, the customer has promised to pay $200. P2P includes document A, B, C for the total of 200. The customer paid $200 before the check date. However, the payment has cleared document A, D, E. When the P2P is evaluated, it is not fulfilled because only document A is cleared.
I would like to sort open items in the FP2P1 creation screen in the sequential order that is consistent with our clearing rule. I checked event 182 to 191, but not sure if one of them is called at time of open item selection. Do you think it is possible to add open item sorting logic in event 187?
Thank you very much for your help.
Jennifer

Hi Amlan,
Thank you for your suggestions.
Our clearing rule reflects the regulatory and business requirements and therefore we cannot change it. If we create P2P based on the standard SAP open item sorting logic, and then clear them first, it would violate our clearing rule.
I do not quite understand your suggestion - "The P2P items against the customer account can be put on direct debit". Could you please elaborate it if you get a moment? Thank you!
I just received SAP's reply to my OSS message. Below is the reply:
"I checked the situation in our reference system and I found out that
the displayed fields of the open item processing in transaction fp2p1
results from customizing (under FI-CA=>Basic Functions=>Open Item
Management=>Define Line Layout Variants for Open Item Processing).
Unfortunately there is no possibility to define a default sorting
variant. Also in the open item processing itself is no option to
define a default sorting. As the functionality does not exist I
recommend you to fill a development request. In SAP note 11 you'll
find more information about it."
Jennifer

Similar Messages

Document Clearing Rule

Hi,
All Experts.
I want to what is clearing rule in FI ( OBIA & OBIB )? In mysystem OBIA is blank but in OBIB it is showing in Account Type K and clearing Rule is CH where it is not define in OBIA. So from where it come exactly ? I am facing one problem that when I am posting one clearing entry through F-04 i am getting Mesage Class X short Dump. I am not able to solve that Short Dump.
I thought it may be generating more line items which is overflowing by system and having relation with clearing rules , specifically summarization of line items !
Could any one focus on this ?
Your help will be great on this.
Regards,
Sharvari Joshi.
Edited by: Sharvari Joshi on Feb 17, 2010 5:32 PM
Edited by: Sharvari Joshi on Feb 17, 2010 7:11 PM

Experts please help.
Regards,
Sharvari Joshi.

Doubt about report FBL5N of screen field:Open items and Cleared items

hi
i know the report FBL5N is use DDF LDB and the report work flow is BSID->BKFP->BSEG
but i don't know to differentiate Open Items and Cleared items in this report.
Open items and Cleared items stand for a field flag in these table (BSID,BKFP,BSEG )? if true the field is?
or they must be calc in program ? if true what about calc rules?
waiting for help! thank you!

Hi,
Here is the difference in Open Items and Cleared Items.
In FI first the document is Open (when it is posted) so the entry is made in table BSID. Once the document is cleared, it will move from BSID to BSAD. And for Cleared item you will see Clearing Document no and Clearing date values updated (these are blank when the item is open).
The only difference in Open and Cleared is via Clearing Document and Clearing Date. If the values are present, it means document is cleared.
Hope this helps.
ashish
Message was edited by:
Ashish Gundawar

Different clearing rules in SAPF124

Hi Gurus,
usually we use the filed ZUONR as automatic Clearing rule for GR/IR account.
Now we have a Company code, which has a another Content in this field. We could use fields EBELN and EBELP.
The rules I store in customizing..are they like "and-rules" or is this like an "or" - this is because we can not set the rule by company code and of course we still need the ZUONR rule... so if it is an "and" we don't have a chance here anyway...
2.) Any suggestions how to solve it?
Many thanks in advance!
Sandra

Hi Sandra
The conditions in OB74 are "AND" conditions.
Since, we cannot set the criteria at company code level, I would suggest that you use different G/L accounts for the purpose of different criteria.
Since, COA has a vast number of G/L accounts, you can look for some G/L numbers which are not used in any other company code as of now and use them for your purpose only in this particular company code after configuration.
Regards
Sowmya

Copy and Clear in ASO

I'm very used to doing copy and clear in BSO calc script. When it comes to ASO, I'm not sure where and how I can do that? Any help would be appreciated. Thank you!

There is no simple copy - you can either reload from source pointing at the new slice you want to copy to (easiest and probably most efficient), extract and reload (modifying the extract or using a load rule to point to the new slice), or in 11.1.2 onwards use ASO procedural calc.
For clearing, take a look at the 'clear data in region' clause in the 'alter database...' MaxL command: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E17236_01/epm.1112/esb_tech_ref/maxl_altdb_as.html

FICA: Clearing rules for account maintenance & auto clearing to apply credits against unpaid security deposits regardless of due date

Hi Folks,
We have a requirement in FICA clearing rules to apply the payment against unpaid security deposit irrespective of the due date. I have the below rule configured as the first step in my clearing variant.
Grouping String: 019 (statistical indicator); Grp Rule: 3; Char Value: H (security deposits); AIRI: 4; Group: 019
Sort characteristic: 010 (Due date); Rank: 3; Char value: H; Rank: 1
I have maintained the corresponding clearing variant in all the clearing types (account maintenance, automatic clearing, and incoming payments); Clearing rule is working perfectly during payments, however for account maintenance and automatic clearing it's not applying the credits against security deposits first. I still see that the items are cleared only based on due date;
Am I missing something here? Please share your suggestions.
Thanks,
Santosh

Santosh:
This rule will not work in account maintenance. You would need to include the data about the credits into your grouping criteria in order for that to work. Most clearing rules do not work for account maintenance as they do for payments. You probably need to have a separate variant with a rule not based on statistical indicator, but rather based on transaction value or maybe create your own custom grouping via TFK116.
regards,
bill.

FICA: clearing rules to applying payments against unpaid security deposits regardless of due date

Hi Folks,
We have a requirement in FICA clearing rules to apply the payment against unpaid security deposit irrespective of the due date. I have the below rule configured as the first step in my clearing variant.
Grouping String: 019 (statistical indicator); Grp Rule: 3; Char Value: H (security deposits); AIRI: 4; Group: 019
Sort characteristic: 010 (Due date); Rank: 3; Char value: H; Rank: 1
I have maintained the corresponding clearing variant in all the clearing types (account maintenance, automatic clearing, and incoming payments); However, I still see that the items are cleared only based on due date;
Am I missing something here? Please share your suggestions.
Thanks,
Santosh
Moderator update - question solved with FICA: Clearing rules for account maintenance & auto clearing to apply credits against unpaid security deposits regardless of due date
Message was edited by: William Eastman

Santosh:
This rule will not work in account maintenance. You would need to include the data about the credits into your grouping criteria in order for that to work. Most clearing rules do not work for account maintenance as they do for payments. You probably need to have a separate variant with a rule not based on statistical indicator, but rather based on transaction value or maybe create your own custom grouping via TFK116.
regards,
bill.

Mapping and transformation rules

Hi experts,
pls tell me what is this mapping and transformation rules in context wz filw to RFC scenario.
what do u mean by transformation and transformation rules.
Thanks
veeru

Hi
Mapping and Transformation both are same,to understand clearly we go for transformation.
Generally we go for Mapping/Transformation when ever you want to change the source structure into required format of the target structure we gor for mapping ie. Transforming the one structure to another.
Ex:
Source Structure:
Fname
Lname
Empid
Fname------>CONCATE theswe togetherly gives Name.
Lname------->CONCATE
My required Target Structure is:
Name(So to get Name we will use the CONCATE preefined functon under Graphical Mapping in Mapping Editor )
Empid
Thanks

Clearing rules

Dear colleagues,
I'm using clearing rules to clear customer open line items. I've defined one for deudor accounts. I tested for a manual payment and it worked correctly, but when I tried to test it for an automatic payment, It didn't bring me all the fields that I defined in the clearing rule to the cleared line item.
Do you know why it doesn't work for all the fields in automatic payment program?
Thanks in advanced,
Olga

Step 1 should probably not sort by invoice number. That is not usually sequential for a utility. And then it would basically be the same as step 2 which should work.

Clearing Rules for Defferals

We have requirement where if the deferral date is populated in the document or item then any incoming payment should not clear that item or document in cases where deferral date is in future,
Any item with no deferral date should clear, any excess payment should be posted as on account payment,
deferral items or document should only clear if the deferral date is in the equal to or less than to system date
I need help in setting up clearing rules to support above requirement, please extend your help.

Hi,
If you are unable to get the desired result through configuration, then code custom program logic in FI-CA Event 110 to distribute your incoming payment amount.
In this Event, you can inspect for the attributes of the items to be cleared (e.g. Deferral Date greater than payment date), and decide on the amount to be posted as Payment on Account.
If you are not familiar with FI-CA Events, go into transaction FQEVENTS and read the function module documentation for Event number 110.
Regards,
Ivor M.

Automatic Clearing Rule for Customers

Hi,
I have a query regarding Automatic clearing rules for the Customers.
I want to clear all the debit balances against all credit balances for each customer (irrespective of the assignment). The exact amounts are not matching though.
Can this be configured for Cusomers in 'Automatic Clearing Rules'?
Please Advise.
Thanks in Advance,
Safi

Hi,
You can use the transaction code F-32 to clear debit and credit items of a customer account. You can only clear open items from one account. You can use this function to clear debits and credits that balance to zero (for example, invoices and payments that have already been entered into the customer account).
Reward points if it is helpful.
Thanks
Ram

Clearing rule in FICA

Hi,
In my current project there is a clearing rule to clear the open amounts.
suppose customer has two open items:-1. Electric bill(enery bill):-$100
2. water heater(non-energy bill):-$50
If customer pays $50(exact amount of water heater) then first water heater bill will be cleared.
If customer pays $70 then electric bill will be cleared.
I want to know are there any standard fuction module or program which decides which amount will be clear first? or it is totally controled by SPRO confiuration?
Thanks
Soni

1
For clearing you use the transaction F.13 and use the option G/R account special process. In this case the field assignment field is not important.
An other option to Prepare Automatic Clearing and set up ther for the GR/IR account a rule based on PO an PO line item number
There are to sort keys for PO's use the ome with order / line item
Paul

Concept of hide and clear

Problem understanding hide and clear concept...
for example, in the code below, it works fine with the write statement and have no problem with the output value when use the back button.
however, when i use it to call a transaction (eg. mm03) and pass the value over, it seems to be a value behind (eg. when i click on row1, it gives a previously stored value. Press back button and when i click on row2, it gives me value of 1. Press back button and when i click on row5, it gives me value of 2. so the clear doesn't seem to "clear")
what could be the problem? hope to understand this concept of hide and clear better (eg. when to clear?)...
Cheers,
Charles
ABAP newbie
DATA number(18) TYPE c.
START-OF-SELECTION.
CLEAR number.
DO 9 TIMES.
    WRITE: / 'Row', (2) sy-index.
    number = sy-index.
    HIDE number.
ENDDO.
AT PF8.
CHECK NOT number IS INITIAL.
CALL TRANSACTION 'MM03'.
SET PARAMETER ID 'MAT' FIELD number.
CLEAR number.
* WRITE: / 'Cursor was in row', (2) NUMBER.

hi,
chk this.
HIDE
Basic form
HIDE f.
In an ABAP Objects context, a more severe syntax check is performed that in other ABAP areas.
See Constants not allowed in HIDE area.
Effect
Retains the contents of f related to the current output line.
When the user selects the line from the list f is automatically filled with the retained value.
The selection can occur in:
AT LINE-SELECTION
AT PFx
AT USER-COMMAND
READ LINE
The contents of the field do not have to have been displayed using WRITE in order for you to retain them.
The HIDE statement does not support deep structures (structures that contain internal tables).
Useful system fields for interactive reporting are listed in the System Fields for Lists documentation.
Note
Lines or components of lines of an internal table that you address using a field symbol (see ASSIGNING addition to the READ and LOOP statements), cannot be retained using HIDE. You can store them using a global variable instead.
Note
Runtime errors:
HIDE_FIELD_TOO_LARGE: The field is too long for HIDE.
HIDE_ON_EMPTY_PAGE: HIDE not possible on an empty page.
HIDE_NO_LOCAL: HIDE not possible for a local field.
HIDE_ILLEGAL_ITAB_SYMBOL: HIDE not possible for a table line or component of a table line.
and also a sample program.
report zxy_0003.
data: begin of itab occurs 0,
field type c,
end of itab.
itab-field = 'A'. append itab.
itab-field = 'B'. append itab.
itab-field = 'C'. append itab.
itab-field = 'D'. append itab.
itab-field = 'E'. append itab.
loop at itab.
format hotspot on.
write:/ itab-field.
hide itab-field.
format hotspot off.
endloop.
at line-selection.
write:/ 'You clicked', itab-field.
It kind of "remembers" what is written, so that when you click on it, it knows what the value is.
Regards,
anver

YE Ret Earning Roll and Clear Process produces out of balance.-MA to fix...

YE Ret Earning Roll and Clear Process produces out of balance.-MA to fix....
Hi,
Our co. has 13 segments.
xxxxx-xxx-xxxxx-xxxxx-xxxx-xxx-x-xxx-xx-xx-xxx-xxx-xxx
ENTITY OU PRIME SUB CC PRD R DC ST NW SP STAT FUT
As a result of our year end retained earnings roll and clear process, our stat segment (seg 12) is not balancing and rolling up to retained earnings. Our balancing segment is legal entity. Currently our countries have to perform manual entries to reclass all non 000 stat accounts back to it's original P&L account. Attempting to automate via Mass Allocation.
Currently, working the following formula. However, unable to move from 000 to applicable stat (130 for example)
A 03011-TTT-30100-TTTTT-TTT-TTT-T-TTT-TT-TT-TTT-TTT-TTT
C S C S S S S S S S S S S
B 03011-TTT-30100-TTTTT-TTT-TTT-T-TTT-TT-TT-TTT-TTT-TTT
C L C L L L L L L L L L L
C 03011-TTT-30100-TTTTT-TTT-TTT-T-TTT-TT-TT-TTT-TTT-TTT
C L C L L L L L L L L L L
T 03011-TTT-30100-TTTTT-TTT-TTT-T-TTT-TT-TT-TTT-TTT-TTT
C L C L L L L L L L L L L
0 03011-TTT-30100-TTTTT-TTT-TTT-T-TTT-TT-TT-TTT-TTT-TTT
C L C L L L L L L L L L L
Note that B and C are the same so that they basically would be a wash. I orignally had a constant (1) in both, however, it resulted in a rule violation.
What currently is happening is a total reclass. That is, all segment 12 values moving from 30100 xxxxx 000 stat to the same. Has anyone experienced this issue? Any ideas/suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks,

Hi,
If I understand you correctly, you are trying to move balances from ONE account combination to another right?
So, let's say, my COA is structured as
B/S- Stat - Acct - whatever...
And account combination
10-000-6100-0000-000 has $100 erroneously in it and I want to MOVE the balance from STAT value 000 to 130.
This is how to do it:
Choose to Allocate Balances From FULL BALANCE.
Leave Full Cost Pool Allocation check box BLANK. If you check this, you cannot use numbers in B and C lines. (See General Ledger Users Guide).
Thus, this is what my formual should look like:
A 10-000-6110-0000-000
C C C C C
B 1
C 1
T 10-130-6110-0000-000
C C C C C
O 10-000-6110-0000-000 (same as A to empty it out)
C C C C C
I'm not sure why you're looping. Looping is used on Parent account when you want to divide up the cost pool proportionately, say across departments.

Dual transaction on same Cost a/c and clearing account Function

In AA Assign rules for the same event function can v configure 2 cost and clearing a/c codes???
Is it possible??

For an e.g i want 2 upload historic cost(for previous periods) which should not affect GL account at this stage...hence planned 2 create AA rule to set cost and clearing a/c as same account code...all my exp classes are set for other functionality and mapped with respective lookup sets...
Now if i need 2 include this...where i can incorporate????
in case WIP cost a/c, cost clearing a/c already engaged then no1 can utilize dis function for other transactions?????????????
pls help me 2 understand

P2P fulfillment and Clearing rule interaction

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for