PO date change settlement during 'vi02' transaction

Hi Friends,
Hi,
We have a scenario where in we engage a transporter to deliver goods to the customer. During sales-billing cycle a 'Shipping Cost' document is created through 'vi01' transaction code to capture the frieght cost.
After the transporter delivers the goods and risese bill for payment, we again open the shiiping cost document in 'vi02' for settlement.
We select the the 'setlement' subscreen, there is a check box 'Transfer'. when we check this and save the document, in the background a PO ans service entry sheet is generated.
In this case system automatically create a PO with the current date but i want that PO will be created using the settlement date not the system date.
(Because suppose one of my shipment document settlement date is 23.06.10 and today i m fully transfiring that document then system will open a log with the error ..POSTING DATE CAN NOT BE EARLIER THEN PO DATE 27.07.10--MENS TODAYS DATE)
How can i solve this problem .
SO I WANT THAT WHEN THE SYSTEM IS CREATING PO SO IT WILL TAKE SETTLEMENT DATE.
Please do the needful.
Point will be given .
Regards
YK

In our case the period generally gets closed by 5th of every month so if I go by your example itself i.e the doc is created on 29.07.2010 (without transferring) and lets say that we are sitting on 01.08.2010 and open the same doc in VI02 the system will show the settlement date as 29.07.2010 ( because it was created on the same date)
Now even I want that when I check the box for transferring the doc should get posted on 29.07.2010 (in previous month itself despite that I am siiting and watching this doc on 01.08.2010) but the system for creating auto PO takes in the current date i.e. 01.08.2010 and throws in a message that you cannot post the settlement prior (29.07.2010) to the PO date i.e 01.08.2010
Hope I am clear in explaining the things. In case of any more clarification kindly post your comments
Regards
YK

Similar Messages

Settlement during 'vi02' transaction

Hi,
We have a scenario where in we engage a transporter to deliver goods to the customer. During sales-billing cycle a 'Shipping Cost' document is created through 'vi01' transaction code to capture the frieght cost.
After the transporter delivers the goods and risese bill for payment, we again open the shiiping cost document in 'vi02' for settlement.
We select the the 'setlement' subscreen, there is a check box 'Transfer'. when we check this and save the document, in the background a PO ans service entry sheet is generated.
Is the PO and service entry sheet generation in background, a standard functionality of 'vi02' during settlement when we check the 'Transfer' check box and save or it is a enhancement.
Thanks
RR

Its a standard functionality.
You can check the settings for automatic creation of PO in the item categories of the Shipment costs.
SPRO->Log Execution->Transportation->Shipment Cost->Shipment Cost document->Shipment cost type and item categories. Here choose the item category and check the parameters maintained.
Regards
Vamsi Javaji.

NO data change message during CANCEL button of ME52N

Hi Gurus,
When i do changes in ME52n then press save button i get error message. Then i press CANCEL button, instead of going to screen 0 it gives an information message ''No Data Change' which i dont want.
Please give your suggestions.
Regards,
Milind

has someone added an enhancement or exit coding? Doesn't sound like standard SAP....sounds like error in someone's PF Status handling code.

Open Transactions in ECC for Master Data changes in MDM

Hi All,
I have a basic Design question on how to handle the impact of Data changes in MDM for any open transactions with that Master object. For eg if we have a Material set up in MDM and in ECC and there are open Purchase Orders for that Material, now if the Base Unit of Measure is changed in MDM and gets harmonized to ECC(After Workflow approval of the Change) how will it impact the PO attached to the material . Can we do any configuration in ECC that will restrict any Open PO s not to take the new changed value and any new POs taking up the new Base Unit of Measure , or can we set up an alert/notification that will trigger for a PO whenever any Master Data is changed and the PO takes the new changed value on the fly . What will be the best approach from a solution point of view .
Thanks ,
Prabuddha

Hi Prabuddha,
In ECC if a change happens to a master data not all the changes are reflected automatically in the open documents like open PO or open Sales order. Some fields values have to be redetermined for eg: "pricing procedure", some of them needs to be changed manually for eg: "Description". Moreover specific to your eg of Base unit of measure, this is a sensitive field and has lot of impact on the process so there for changing such fields it is necessary to close all the open documents against the Master data record in consideration. This fact is regardless whether the change happens through an IDoc or directly by MM02/XK02/XD02
Prabudha, Please revert if you have further questions.
Best Regards
P T Manoj
Edited by: PT MANOJ on Sep 2, 2011 10:25 PM

My ipod gen 3 is frozen after the latest update from itunes,it will not power on or restore without error.Itunes is up to date,changed usb ports,even uninstalled and reinstalled all apple software, error 1601 during restore

My ipod gen 3 is frozen after the latest update from itunes,it will not power on or restore without error.Itunes is up to date,changed usb ports,even uninstalled and reinstalled all apple software, error 1601 during restore

Hello, VvioletT.
Thank you for visiting Apple Support Communities.
I see you are experiencing issues syncing your iOS device. Here are a couple articles that I would recommend going through when experiencing this issue.
iOS: Troubleshooting USB-related alerts when syncing
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS5254
Resolve issues between iTunes and security software
http://support.apple.com/kb/ts3125
Cheers,
Jason H.

Cannot change transaction isolation during distributed transaction

Hi All,
When ever the IPortalComponent session expires my application is throwing Null pointer exception. So I am catching the NullPointer exception and then reloading the page again. It is working in frontend without any issues.
But in the error log monitor(nwa) I can see the below error when reloading the page after component session expires.
Cannot change transaction isolation during distributed transaction and when the connection is shared. DataSource name: "PRODB2
As per my knowledge I understood that this is happening beacuse application is trying to recreate a new connection pool while one pool instance is alive.
If this is correct can any one tell me how to destory the pool of current session when reloading the page.
Thanks in Advance,
Chinna.

What was the solution to the problem ?

How to restrict change to plant specific data in MM01 and MM02 transaction.

Hi Experts,
The requirements is to restrict the plant specific data change in one system. As of now we have 2 different system lets say sys-1 and sys-2. our requirement is if at all any of the users are trying to change/create the material in Sys-1 they should be only able to update basic information and parts regional information/global informations only in sys-1.
Do we have any option in customizing?
If not then what would be the way to achieve this?
Please help.
Thanks!!!!
Rajesh.

Hi,
Please refer the below link it may help you..............
Authorization object for label Data view in mm02

RDA for Transactional Data Changes (But needs to load as Master Data to IO)

Hi,
I would like to use RDA to load Data changes into IO (Not for DSO).
I tried using this, i can able to load data into PSA. But, from PSA to IO, No datapackage is getting transfered. i.e. Transfered records = 0.
We considered several options i.e. remote cubes etc. We need to implement RDA.
Note: I have gone through the Documentation on RDA. Which SAP mentioned, RDA won't support for Master Data if we have aggregates. We don't have any Aggregates build on my cubes.
Thanks in advacne!!!
Nagesh Ganisetti.

RDA DTP is used for supplying data to the Data Store Objects but not to the Master data infoobjects...
Please follow the links to get to know more on this..
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw2004s/helpdata/en/42/f98e07cc483255e10000000a1553f7/frameset.htm
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw2004s/helpdata/en/42/fa50e40f501a77e10000000a422035/content.htm
thanks
hope this helps..

Standard tcode for (mass) data change of internal orders or ... ??

Hi!
I really need some info if there by any chance SAP has standard transaction for mass data change of internal orders (more particular, distribution rules in settlement rule section, which can be found in <b>KO02 transaction</b> ).
I am trying to change distribution rules for settlement receivers in <b>settlement rule section</b>, that is finish past distribution rules by filling TO PERIOD and TO FISCAL YEAR fields on the right of each rule, and then entering new rules (which i get from external source -flat file, ms excel, csv...).
If i wanted to import data in SAP i guess i would have to develop a Batch Input. But that would take me some time to develop because it is pretty complicated.
I found tcode KO08 but i do not really know how to use it. Maybe there is another tcode that i am not aware of?
I would appreciate any suggestions!
Thnx, UK

Hi Srilakshimi,
If you are familiar with MASS transaction, then you can modify User Responsible field for Internal Orders from transaction KOK2.
As first step you must create a selection variant in order to define which orders you want to modify. Once selection variant was created, excute transaction with it and you'll get a screen similar to MASS transaction. Select the field you want and massively replace it. Do not forget to save.
Best Regards!
Mgitur

"An autonomous transaction does not see any changes made by main transact"

Hi,
I'm trying to reproduce the "An autonomous transaction does not see any changes made by main transaction" reffered on :
Oracle® Database Application Developer's Guide - Fundamentals
10g Release 2 (10.2)
Part Number B14251-01
chapter 2 SQL Processing for Application Developers
Paragraph : Autonomous TransactionsI set up a simple case...
create table emp_ as select * from emp
begin
update emp_ set hiredate=hiredate+100 where empno=7934;
end;
create or replace trigger trg_emp_
after insert or update on emp_
for each row
declare
    pragma autonomous_transaction;
    emp_var emp.hiredate%type;
begin
    select hiredate
      into emp_var
      from emp_
    where empno=:new.empno;
    dbms_output.put_line('empno: '||:new.empno);
    dbms_output.put_line('old hiredate: '||:old.hiredate);
    dbms_output.put_line('new hiredate: '||:new.hiredate);
end;Prior to any change...
SQL> select empno,hiredate from emp_;
EMPNO HIREDATE
5498 21/4/1982
5499 11/10/1981
5411 10/10/1981
5410 10/10/1982
7369 17/12/1980
7499 20/2/1981
7521 22/2/1981
7566 2/4/1981
7654 28/9/1981
7698 1/5/1981
7782 9/6/1981
7788 19/4/1987
7839 17/11/1981
7844 8/9/1981
7876 23/5/1987
7900 3/12/1981
7902 3/12/1981
7934 23/1/1982After the change...
SQL> begin
2    update emp_ set hiredate=hiredate+100 where empno=7934;
3 end;
4 /
empno: 7934
old hiredate: 23/01/82
new hiredate: 03/05/82
PL/SQL procedure successfully completedAccording to the Oracle doc the select of the autonomous transaction should not see the change made to the hiredate column of the table in the main transaction(in the anonymous block)....
What may i do wrong..????
Thank you,
Sim

Simon:
As Tubby pointed out, your dbms_output commands do not display the value you selected in the trigger. Your trigger based demonstration needs to be more like:
SQL> SELECT * FROM t;
        ID DT
         1 05-SEP-2009
         2 17-JUL-2009
SQL> CREATE TRIGGER t_ai
2     AFTER INSERT OR UPDATE ON t
3     FOR EACH ROW
4 DECLARE
5     PRAGMA AUTONOMOUS_TRANSACTION;
6     l_dt t.dt%TYPE;
7 BEGIN
8     SELECT dt INTO l_dt
9     FROM t
10     WHERE id = :new.id;
11     DBMS_OUTPUT.Put_Line ('ID: '||:new.id);
12     DBMS_OUTPUT.Put_Line ('Old dt: '||:old.dt);
13     DBMS_OUTPUT.Put_Line ('New dt: '||:new.dt);
14     DBMS_OUTPUT.Put_Line ('Aut dt: '||l_dt);
15 END;
16 /
Trigger created.
SQL> UPDATE t SET dt = sysdate WHERE id = 2;
ID: 2
Old dt: 17-JUL-2009
New dt: 25-OCT-2009
Aut dt: 17-JUL-2009
1 row updated.So, the automomous transaction select did not see the changed value of dt.
I know you are just trying to understand automomous transactions here and would never do sometihg like this in production right? :-)
Your trigger, as written, has some interesting side effects because of the automomous transaction. For example:
SQL> INSERT INTO t VALUES(3, sysdate - 25);
INSERT INTO t VALUES(3, sysdate - 25)
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-01403: no data found
ORA-06512: at "OPS$ORACLE.T_AI", line 5
ORA-04088: error during execution of trigger 'OPS$ORACLE.T_AI'
SQL> UPDATE t SET id = 3 where trunc(dt) = TO_DATE('05-Sep-2009', 'dd-mon-yyyy');
UPDATE t SET id = 3 where trunc(dt) = TO_DATE('05-Sep-2009', 'dd-mon-yyyy')
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-01403: no data found
ORA-06512: at "OPS$ORACLE.T_AI", line 5
ORA-04088: error during execution of trigger 'OPS$ORACLE.T_AI'John

Changing Isolation Level Mid-Transaction

Hi,
I have a SS bean which, within a single container managed transaction, makes numerous
database accesses. Under high load, we start having serious contention issues
on our MS SQL server database. In order to reduce these issues, I would like
to reduce my isolation requirements in some of the steps of the transaction.
To my knowledge, there are two ways to achieve this: a) specify isolation at the
connection level, or b) use locking hints such as NOLOCK or ROWLOCK in the SQL
statements. My questions are:
1) If all db access is done within a single tx, can the isolation level be changed
back and forth?
2) Is it best to set the isolation level at the JDBC level or to use the MS SQL
locking hints?
Is there any other solution I'm missing?
Thanks,
Sebastien

Galen Boyer wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, [email protected] wrote:
Galen Boyer wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, [email protected] wrote:
Oracle's serializable isolation level doesn't offer what most
customers I've seen expect it to offer. They typically expect
that a serializable transaction will block any read-data from
being altered during the transaction, and oracle doesn't do
that.I haven't implemented WEB systems that employ anything but
the default concurrency control, because a web transaction is
usually very long running and therefore holding a connection
open during its life is unscalable. But, your statement did
make me curious. I tried a quick test case. IN ONE SQLPLUS
SESSION: SQL> alter session set isolation_level =
serializable; SQL> select * from t1; ID FL ---------- -- 1 AA
2 BB 3 CC NOW, IN ANOTHER SQLPLUS SESSION: SQL> update t1 set
fld = 'YY' where id = 1; 1 row updated. SQL> commit; Commit
complete. Now, back to the previous session. SQL> select *
from t1; ID FL ---------- -- 1 AA 2 BB 3 CC So, your
statement is incorrect.Hi, and thank you for the diligence to explore. No, actually
you proved my point. If you did that with SQLServer or Sybase,
your second session's update would have blocked until you
committed your first session's transaction. Yes, but this doesn't have anything to do with serializable.
This is the weak behaviour of those systems that say writers can
block readers.Weak or strong, depending on the customer point of view. It does guarantee
that the locking tx can continue, and read the real data, and eventually change
it, if necessary without fear of blockage by another tx etc.
In your example, you were able to change and commit the real
data out from under the first, serializable transaction. The
reason why your first transaction is still able to 'see the old
value' after the second tx committed, is not because it's
really the truth (else why did oracle allow you to commit the
other session?). What you're seeing in the first transaction's
repeat read is an obsolete copy of the data that the DBMS
made when you first read it. Yes, this is true.
Oracle copied that data at that time into the per-table,
statically defined space that Tom spoke about. Until you commit
that first transaction, some other session could drop the whole
table and you'd never know it.This is incorrect.Thanks. Point taken. It is true that you could have done a complete delete
of all rows in the table though..., correct?
That's the fast-and-loose way oracle implements
repeatable-read! My point is that almost everyone trying to
serialize transactions wants the real data not to
change. Okay, then you have to lock whatever you read, completely.
SELECT FOR UPDATE will do this for your customers, but
serializable won't. Is this the standard definition of
serializable of just customer expectation of it? AFAIU,
serializable protects you from overriding already committed
data.The definition of serializable is loose enough to allow
oracle's implementation, but non-changing relevant data is
a typically understood hope for serializable. Serializable
transactions typically involve reading and writing *only
already committed data*. Only DIRTY_READ allows any access to
pre-committed data. The point is that people assume that a
serializable transaction will not have any of it's data re
committed, ie: altered by some other tx, during the serializable
tx.
Oracle's rationale for allowing your example is the semantic
arguement that in spite of the fact that your first transaction
started first, and could continue indefinitely assuming it was
still reading AA, BB, CC from that table, because even though
the second transaction started later, the two transactions *so
far*, could have been serialized. I believe they rationalize it by saying that the state of the
data at the time the transaction started is the state throughout
the transaction.Yes, but the customer assumes that the data is the data. The customer
typically has no interest in a copy of the data staying the same
throughout the transaction.
Ie: If the second tx had started after your first had
committed, everything would have been the same. This is true!
However, depending on what your first tx goes on to do,
depending on what assumptions it makes about the supposedly
still current contents of that table, it may ether be wrong, or
eventually do something that makes the two transactions
inconsistent so they couldn't have been serialized. It is only
at this later point that the first long-running transaction
will be told "Oooops. This tx could not be serialized. Please
start all over again". Other DBMSes will completely prevent
that from happening. Their value is that when you say 'commit',
there is almost no possibility of the commit failing. But this isn't the argument against Oracle. The unable to
serialize doesn't happen at commit, it happens at write of
already changed data. You don't have to wait until issuing
commit, you just have to wait until you update the row already
changed. But, yes, that can be longer than you might wish it to
be. True. Unfortunately the typical application writer logic may
do stuff which never changes the read data directly, but makes
changes that are implicitly valid only when the read data is
as it was read. Sometimes the logic is conditional so it may never
write anything, but may depend on that read data staying the same.
The issue is that some logic wants truely serialized transactions,
which block each other on entry to the transaction, and with
lots of DBMSes, the serializable isolation level allows the
serialization to start with a read. Oracle provides "FOR UPDATE"
which can supply this. It is just that most people don't know
they need it.
With Oracle and serializable, 'you pay your money and take your
chances'. You don't lose your money, but you may lose a lot of
time because of the deferred checking of serializable
guarantees.
Other than that, the clunky way that oracle saves temporary
transaction-bookkeeping data in statically- defined per-table
space causes odd problems we have to explain, such as when a
complicated query requires more of this memory than has been
alloted to the table(s) the DBMS will throw an exception
saying it can't serialize the transaction. This can occur even
if there is only one user logged into the DBMS.This one I thought was probably solved by database settings,
so I did a quick search, and Tom Kyte was the first link I
clicked and he seems to have dealt with this issue before.
http://tinyurl.com/3xcb7 HE WRITES: serializable will give you
repeatable read. Make sure you test lots with this, playing
with the initrans on the objects to avoid the "cannot
serialize access" errors you will get otherwise (in other
databases, you will get "deadlocks", in Oracle "cannot
serialize access") I would bet working with some DBAs, you
could have gotten past the issues your client was having as
you described above.Oh, yes, the workaround every time this occurs with another
customer is to have them bump up the amount of that
statically-defined memory. Yes, this is what I'm saying.
This could be avoided if oracle implemented a dynamically
self-adjusting DBMS-wide pool of short-term memory, or used
more complex actual transaction logging. ? I think you are discounting just how complex their logging
is. Well, it's not the logging that is too complicated, but rather
too simple. The logging is just an alternative source of memory
to use for intra-transaction bookkeeping. I'm just criticising
the too-simpleminded fixed-per-table scratch memory for stale-
read-data-fake-repeatable-read stuff. Clearly they could grow and
release memory as needed for this.
This issue is more just a weakness in oracle, rather than a
deception, except that the error message becomes
laughable/puzzling that the DBMS "cannot serialize a
transaction" when there are no other transactions going on.Okay, the error message isn't all that great for this situation.
I'm sure there are all sorts of cases where other DBMS's have
laughable error messages. Have you submitted a TAR?Yes. Long ago! No one was interested in splitting the current
message into two alternative messages:
"This transaction has just become unserializable because
of data changes we allowed some other transaction to do"
or
"We ran out of a fixed amount of scratch memory we associated
with table XYZ during your transaction. There were no other
related transactions (or maybe even users of the DBMS) at this
time, so all you need to do to succeed in future is to have
your DBA reconfigure this scratch memory to accomodate as much
as we may need for this or any future transaction."
I am definitely not an Oracle expert. If you can describe for
me any application design that would benefit from Oracle's
implementation of serializable isolation level, I'd be
grateful. There may well be such.As I've said, I've been doing web apps for awhile now, and
I'm not sure these lend themselves to that isolation level.
Most web "transactions" involve client think-time which would
mean holding a database connection, which would be the death
of a web app.Oh absolutely. No transaction, even at default isolation,
should involve human time if you want a generically scaleable
system. But even with a to-think-time transaction, there is
definitely cases where read-data are required to stay as-is for
the duration. Typically DBMSes ensure this during
repeatable-read and serializable isolation levels. For those
demanding in-the-know customers, oracle provided the select
"FOR UPDATE" workaround.Yep. I concur here. I just think you are singing the praises of
other DBMS's, because of the way they implement serializable,
when their implementations are really based on something that the
Oracle corp believes is a fundamental weakness in their
architecture, "Writers block readers". In Oracle, this never
happens, and is probably one of the biggest reasons it is as
world-class as it is, but then its behaviour on serializable
makes you resort to SELECT FOR UPDATE. For me, the trade-off is
easily accepted.Well, yes and no. Other DBMSes certainly have their share of faults.
I am not critical only of oracle. If one starts with Oracle, and
works from the start with their performance arcthitecture, you can
certainly do well. I am only commenting on the common assumptions
of migrators to oracle from many other DBMSes, who typically share
assumptions of transactional integrity of read-data, and are surprised.
If you know Oracle, you can (mostly) do everything, and well. It is
not fundamentally worse, just different than most others. I have had
major beefs about the oracle approach. For years, there was TAR about
oracle's serializable isolation level *silently allowing partial
transactions to commit*. This had to do with tx's that inserted a row,
then updated it, all in the one tx. If you were just lucky enough
to have the insert cause a page split in the index, the DBMS would
use the old pre-split page to find the newly-inserted row for the
update, and needless to say, wouldn't find it, so the update merrily
updated zero rows! The support guy I talked to once said the developers
wouldn't fix it "because it'd be hard". The bug request was marked
internally as "must fix next release" and oracle updated this record
for 4 successive releases to set the "next release" field to the next
release! They then 'fixed' it to throw the 'cannot serialize' exception.
They have finally really fixed it.( bug #440317 ) in case you can
access the history. Back in 2000, Tom Kyte reproduced it in 7.3.4,
8.0.3, 8.0.6 and 8.1.5.
Now my beef is with their implementation of XA and what data they
lock for in-doubt transactions (those that have done the prepare, but
have not yet gotten a commit). Oracle's over-simple logging/locking is
currently locking pages instead of rows! This is almost like Sybase's
fatal failure of page-level locking. There can be logically unrelated data
on those pages, that is blocked indefinitely from other equally
unrelated transactions until the in-doubt tx is resolved. Our TAR has
gotten a "We would have to completely rewrite our locking/logging to
fix this, so it's your fault" response. They insist that the customer
should know to configure their tables so there is only one datarow per
page.
So for historical and current reasons, I believe Oracle is absolutely
the dominant DBMS, and a winner in the market, but got there by being first,
sold well, and by being good enough. I wish there were more real market
competition, and user pressure. Then oracle and other DBMS vendors would
be quicker to make the product better.
Joe

Posting date in settlement order

Hi experts,
I have problem with posting date in settlement order.
when I run settlement KO88 or KO8G, SAP take posting date as the last day of the month, so in FI runs the validation that I cannot post with a future date.
My question is: How can I change the posting date in settlement order? Instead of change the posting date manually, I want SAP use posting date as the system date, because I would schedule the transaction every day.
Please help me.
Thanks,
Gaetano

Scheduled the program RKO7KO8G.
Solved.

While trying to change a BOM with transaction CS02, a runtime error appears

While trying to change a BOM with transaction CS02, a runtime error appears.
In intial screen he entered material ,plant BOM usage and date valid from after executed then id displayed item list in that he wantu2019s delete one item, he has been deleted selected item after that when he was saving he is getting runtime error
Developer trace
ABAP Program SAPLKED1_WRITE_CE4_BPS1                 .
Source LKED1_WRITE_CE4_BPS1U01                  Line 30.
Error Code SAPSQL_ARRAY_INSERT_DUPREC.
Module $Id: //bas/640_REL/src/krn/runt/absapsql.c#17 $ SAP.
Function HandleRsqlErrors Line 775.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_STDERR completed.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_RFC_ERROR entered.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_RFC_ERROR completed.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_RFC_CLOSE entered.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_RFC_CLOSE completed.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_IMC_ERROR entered.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_IMC_ERROR completed.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_DATASET_CLOSE entered.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_DATASET_CLOSE completed.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_RESET_SHMLOCKS entered.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_RESET_SHMLOCKS completed.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_ERROR_SAVE entered.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_ERROR_SAVE completed.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_ERROR_TPDA entered.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_ERROR_TPDA completed.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_PXA_RELEASE_RUDI entered.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_PXA_RELEASE_RUDI completed.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_LIVE_CACHE_CLEANUP entered.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_LIVE_CACHE_CLEANUP completed.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_END entered.
RABAX: level LEV_RX_END completed.
RABAX: end RX_RFC
In sm21
Perform rollback
Run-time error "SAPSQL_ARRAY_INSERT_DUPREC" occurred
     Short dump "090618 110101 donalda 11557 " generated
Runtime Error          SAPSQL_ARRAY_INSERT_DUPREC
Exception              CX_SY_OPEN_SQL_DB
       Occurred on     18.06.2009 at   11:01:01
The ABAP/4 Open SQL array insert results in duplicate database records.
What happened?
Error in ABAP application program.
The current ABAP program "SAPLKED1_WRITE_CE4_BPS1" had to be terminated because
one of the
statements could not be executed.
This is probably due to an error in the ABAP program.
What can you do?
Print out the error message (using the "Print" function)
and make a note of the actions and input that caused the
error.
To resolve the problem, contact your SAP system administrator.
You can use transaction ST22 (ABAP Dump Analysis) to view and administer
termination messages, especially those beyond their normal deletion
date.
Error analysis
An exception occurred. This exception is dealt with in more detail below
. The exception, which is assigned to the class 'CX_SY_OPEN_SQL_DB', was
neither
caught nor passed along using a RAISING clause, in the procedure
"RKE_WRITE_CE4__BPS1" "(FUNCTION)"
Since the caller of the procedure could not have expected this exception
to occur, the running program was terminated.
The reason for the exception is:
If you use an ABAP/4 Open SQL array insert to insert a record in
the database and that record already exists with the same key,
this results in a termination.
(With an ABAP/4 Open SQL single record insert in the same error
situation, processing does not terminate, but SY-SUBRC is set to 4.)
How to correct the error
The exception must either be prevented, caught within the procedure
"RKE_WRITE_CE4__BPS1"
"(FUNCTION)", or declared in the procedure's RAISING clause.
To prevent the exception, note the following:
Use an ABAP/4 Open SQL array insert only if you are sure that none of
the records passed already exists in the database.
You may able to find an interim solution to the problem
in the SAP note system. If you have access to the note system yourself,
use the following search criteria:
"SAPSQL_ARRAY_INSERT_DUPREC" CX_SY_OPEN_SQL_DBC
"SAPLKED1_WRITE_CE4_BPS1" or "LKED1_WRITE_CE4_BPS1U01"
"RKE_WRITE_CE4__BPS1"
If you cannot solve the problem yourself, please send the
following documents to SAP:
1. A hard copy print describing the problem.
   To obtain this, select the "Print" function on the current screen.
2. A suitable hardcopy prinout of the system log.
   To obtain this, call the system log with Transaction SM21
   and select the "Print" function to print out the relevant
   part.
3. If the programs are your own programs or modified SAP programs,
   supply the source code.
   To do this, you can either use the "PRINT" command in the editor or
   print the programs using the report RSINCL00.
4. Details regarding the conditions under which the error occurred
   or which actions and input led to the error.

Hi ,
you are getting beacuse u are trying to do mass update to database.
Please check that below note are applicable to your system.
Note 453313 - DBIF_RSQL_ERROR_INTERNAL for mass insert
Note 869534 - AFS MRP doesn't work properly with all BOM item categories
Thanks Rishi Abrol

Address data changed after invoice is created

Hi,
I've a problem to solve and it's related with data changed after invoice is created.
The scenario is the follow:
1º - create a complete and standard sales process - order => delivery => invoice, with the standard partner scheme and without edit the address data, for any kind of partner
2ª after the invoice is created, I change the address data on Client Master Data, for the same client that I've used on previous process
3º I'll go to the VF03 transaction and take a look at the partner data on header level. Here I can see that the changes on the Client Master Data ar updated to the invoice document wich is already created and printed when I maked the changes
I think that could be a program error because, once the documento is created, you only can change texts and accounts if this document is not yet created.
And, I can't edit this kind of data on invoice creation because it must be done at order level.
So I don't understand why it happen, but it happen on more than one client.
I'll hope that anyone can help me to solve this issue.
Kind regards,
Nuno Rodrigues

Hi Nuno,
the adresses of all Clients are stored in table adrc. If there are no changes in the order, the system takes the standard adress of the client. That is made for not having an extra adress for each order.
If you change the adress - the system will create a new adressnumber ( 999........ - see in VBPA ).
If you have different adressnumbers in your orders, you are not able th collect several orders into one delivery note - for the adressnumber ist normally a split-criteria.
Ich you will have an extra Adress for each Order, change the adress - for example by an user exit.
But if you have different adressnumbers - the delivery and the invoice will split the different orders - if you dont do something against in an user-exit.
Hans

Is anyone else having problems with an iPhone 6 delivery date changing on them?

I sat up until 12:01am to pre order (2) iPhone 6's and (2) iPhone 6 +'s and they had a delivery date of 9/19 for both of the phones at the time I logged on to Verizon's preorder site. The system would not allow me to log in as an existing customer but it would allow me to order as a new customer. I kept trying to order new phones as an existing customer on two different computers and three different browsers without any luck. I finally decided to order them as a new customer and the order went right through the Verizon system without any problem. Two minutes later I received an email from Verizon requesting that I call them as soon as possible to complete the order. I called in and spoke to a rep that explained that I already was an existing customer and that I would need to use the "Existing Customer" preorder link. I explained the issues I was having and she said that I would still need to use that system when it was available. So I tried the existing customer link and it now let me through but the date for the iPhone 6 plus had slipped to 10/7 (It is now 1:30 am). I completed the transaction and it stated 9/19 delivery for iPhone 6 and 10/7 for the iPhone Plus. However once I received the email confirmation it stated that the delivery date for the phones was 10/7. I called Verizon customer service and stated my concern about the later delivery date for the iPhone 6 and they told me that the iPhone 6's would arrive on the 19th and the pluses would arrive on 10/7 so I did not change my order. This morning 9/19 8:00am I called in to inquire about my shipping confirmation numbers for the (2) iPhone 6's and the customer service rep (Robanya) told me that he would call me back at 1:00pm PST and give me the shipping confirmation numbers. He asked specifically which phone number he should call me back on and I gave him my cell number. After not receiving a call back from Robanya, I called Verizon customer service at 5:30pm and spoke Ryan James and he confirmed that the orders were placed on the 12th of Sept and that one system showed all of them due to be delivered 10/7. After insisting that Robanya that I spoke with earlier in the day said they were shipping today, Ryan got off the phone for 5-10 mins and then got back on and said that the iPhone 6's shipped yesterday on the 18th but he did not have a confirmation number. After pressing him that someone should have this confirmation number in Verizon he stated that the delivery dates were subject to change and that all the phones would probably ship on 10/7 and left it at that.
So after loosing sleep to pre order phones on Verizon, speaking with (3) different Verizon reps, I am rewarded by having my delivery date changed to 10/7 on my iPhone 6's which is the same delivery date they were quoting yesterday 9/18.
Did any one else have the same disappointing experience that I had?

Yes, pre-ordered iPhone 6 with a guaranteed delivery date of 19 September; took screen shots after the order just to have record of it.
Called Verizon 18 Sept because I hadn't received a tracking number yet, and was informed my phone would now ship 7 October. When I expressed that was different than what was promised and had proof, a manager came on the phone and confirmed that I should have a 19 Sept delivery date based on their records. She told me however she could not confirm when my order would ship.
19 Sept came and went with no phone delivery. I have tried calling Verizon, posting here, and posting on their FB page for customer service. Every rep I talked to (except for the first manager on 18 Sept) has been unable to admit that they mislabeled their product sales page, and mislead the customer. One rep told me the guaranteed delivery date was an "estimate"; when I asked her to show me on the website where it uses the term "estimate", she admitted it didn't communicate that, but still was unable to utter the words "we made a mistake".
VZW needs to take a 101 class in customer service and crises management; rule #1 is if you screw up, admit it! I know I am not going to get my iPhone as promised, but pretending like there is nothing wrong with that customer service experience is just making things worse. Not a single employee I have communicated with to date has attempted to do anything proactive to correct or mitigate the customer failure. I am truly amazed at how poorly VZW has been handling this to date; again (removed) happens with supply/demand, website errors, etc, but the failure to acknowledge how the screw up shafted a lot of (formally) loyal long time customers is criminal.
>> Edited to comply with the Verizon Wireless Terms of Service <<
Edited by: Verizon Moderator

PO date change settlement during 'vi02' transaction

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for