Post park ivoice M8079 'Reversal value greater than value invoiced to date'

I create a Service purchase order number is 8200000747 in our products system, and service entry sheet number is 1000026152, material document number is 5000306476.
When I create a park invoice reference this Service PO, the system can not clear GR/IR account with that service entry sheet(1000026152). When we want to post this park invoice, system generate message M8079 'Reversal value greater than value invoiced to date'. But, this item never been verification invoice , I can find this not cleared GR/IR data in MR11, this item not a multi account assignment , no foreign currency.
What happened? How can I carry out the correct GR/IR account data in park invoice?

Hello,
Instead of reversing the invoice try posting the Credit Memo through MIRO .
Regards
Mahesh

Similar Messages

Can't add numbers greater than 100 in the Data Editor for a column chart

I'm trying to create a column chart in Keynote '09 but every time I add a data point with a value greater than 100 in the Data Editor it turns the number into a date. I have the Y Axis set to "Number" and it works fine for numbers less than 100 but I want to show a graph that goes from 0 - 1000. Is this happening to anyone else?
Chart Settings:
Y Axis Options:
- Max = 1000
- Steps = 5
- Format = Number
X Axis Options
- Show Axis
- Show Categories
- No Tick Marks
thanks in advance for the help

Welcome to the discussions, AlexEberts.
No, it's not happening for me. This is what I'm doing
1) Insert -> Chart -> Column
2) In the Data editor, for 2007, I enter 110.
The chart automatically expands to 110 (because, by default, it's set to autosize the Y-axis)
Does this work for you? If it does, then we can look at why it doesn't work when you add parameters.

"Reversal value greater than the value invoiced to date" error

Hi all,
I have a scenario. there is a invoice which we tried to reverse through MR8M. But it was not successful. Now , as a alternative solution I am trying to book credit memo. There were two line items in the PO. When I try to book Credit memo, the system throws error "Reversal value greater than the value invoiced to date" only for line item 2. Line item 1 is perfectly OK. Any suggestions why this is happening ? If it would have been exchange rate problem then I think the error should be for both the line items.
Regards,
Vivek

Hi,
You told that youtr PO is having two line utems and you are trying to post the credit memeo for the two line items.
Does your po is invoiced for the two line items ?
if the second line item is not posted with any invoice , while posting credit memo to second line item system will give this error.This is one scenario.
May be you would have wrongly entered the values ?
There could have been already reversed or posted the credit memo for then second line item .
check whather you are posting any subsequent posting ?
Regards,

Recieve a value and search for a value greater than item

is this code correct if i wanted to recieve a single argument item and search the list for a value greater than item
public boolean greaterFound(Comparable item)
     int index = 0;
while (index < numItems && listItems[index].compareTo(item) != 0)
      index++;
return ((index-1) < (index));
}

Okay here are all the errors piece by piece.
public boolean greaterFound(Comparable item)
     int index = 0;Well to start with this is not an error per se. But I would just return true if I found a match and false otherwise. There may be some who think that is terrible... I disagree.
while (index < numItems && listItems[index].compareTo(item) != 0)What is numItems?
That if is shady.
What you are checking for is flat out wrong.
      index++;I'd be returning true here
return ((index-1) < (index));This is just nonsense. As it stands will always return true and invalidates the rest of your code.

Goods receipt date should be greater than the P.O. date

Hi
Is there any option to control the Goods receipt date should not be lesser than the P.O.Date??
Eg: P.O. is raised in 10.1.9, User should not do the GRN before 10.1.9. In which way we can control this???
Regards
Ravi

Dear,
You have to include User exit in MIGOwhich will trhrow an error at the time when Goods receipt date is greater than the P.O. date.
Regards
Utsav

[10g] Way to find least value greater than a value?

I have a simple (I think) question ...
Part 1:
Is there a way to determine the least value, among a set of values, that is greater than 0?
A couple of examples:
Set of values:
{0,1,2,3}
Return value:
1
Set of values:
{0,5,10,20,100}
Return value:
5
Set of values:
{1,4,9,11}
Return value:
1Part 2:
Same thing, but greater than some given value, not necessary 0.
Set of values:
{0,1,2,3}
Parameter value:
2
Return value:
3
Set of values:
{0,5,10,20,100}
Parameter value:
2
Return value:
5
Set of values:
{1,4,9,11}
Parameter value:
2
Return value:
4In particular, I'm looking for an efficient way of doing this. I believe I can do it with a set of CASE statements, but it gets really complex the more values you are comparing.
My first thought was to use the LEAST function, but that doesn't allow me a way to use a parameter.
Any suggestions?

-- this section has been edited
And that's basically where I was heading. I was hoping there was a less complex way to do it... somehow replacing any zeros with an impossibly large number, without using case statements (something equivalent to the NVL function, but to replace any value with another), so that they'd never be less than anything, and then I could just use the LEAST function. The only way I can think of to do that though, would be to convert the numbers to strings, use REPLACE, and then convert them back to numbers, which doesn't seem less complex than the CASE statements, and most likely is worse performance-wise.
For example:
SELECT     ord_nbr
,     seq_nbr
,     time_spent /
     CASE     WHEN     comp_qty     <= plan_qty
          AND     comp_qty     <> 0
          THEN     comp_qty
          WHEN     comp_qty     > plan_qty
          THEN     LEAST     ( TO_NUMBER(REPLACE(TO_CHAR(ord_qty-scrap_qty),'0','999999999'))
                    , TO_NUMBER(REPLACE(TO_CHAR(plan_qty),'0','999999999'))
                    , TO_NUMBER(REPLACE(TO_CHAR(comp_qty),'0','999999999'))
          ELSE 1
     END     AS unit_time
FROM     ord_detail
;-- end of section edited (I posted before I had fully gone through the solution provided)
I checked the data, and though, theoretically all values could be zero, there are no instances where that happens. I think that, in the case all values were 0, I'd just want to use 1 instead.
Side note on the "big" problem behind this question....
My ultimate problem, (and if I end up needing help with that, I'll start a new post for it) is that the quantity data in our system has a fair amount of junk in it...values that can't be true. With this solution, I would assume that in any case where the quantity complete at a given step of a process is less than or equal to the quantity planned to be complete at that step, the value is good, which is not necessarily a correct assumption. Then, only in cases where something can't be true, like when quantity complete > the quantity planned, are when I would intervene with this solution to make a "best guess" at the correct value. There a few things related to this that I have to determine before I can figure out my next step.
We have another database (so we can keep things straight, I'll call the database I've been querying up til now DB1, and this other one, DB2) that has much more reliable quantity data and step data (sometimes it has steps that aren't in DB1) but its structure is complex, I'm rather unfamiliar with it, and it does not have time spent data. Additionally, some products have all their information in DB1, and none in DB2.
So my options are to:
1) ...try to learn the structure of the other database, find the data I need, and query both databases together, using this thread's solution to resolve any questionable data that does not exist in both systems, and skipping any steps that occur in DB2, but not DB1 (since they won't have any time data, which is ultimately what I'm after)
2) ...try to come up with a method to pre-"scrub" my data in DB1, based on some logical assumptions and looking at all steps in an order, so that I can then just query the scrubbed data...
3) ...use the solution from this thread, and assume that the bad data isn't enough to significantly impact my calculations...
What I wouldn't give for a single system with all good data!
Edited by: user11033437 on Nov 19, 2010 4:21 PM

Using EVDRE to return only records having a value greater than X

in the old reporting wizard you could use MDX statement like "return only those members/data where the value of some account is greater than 100".
Thus allowing you to select for instance those entities that had signinficant sales or the like.
In EVDRE i am looking for a way to do the same but apart from returning the Top n members or suppressing zero's i cannot fnd a way to do this. From an earlier post in the old outlooksoft consultancy forum (dating from march last year) i understood that this functionality was already prepared so i assumed it is in, but how ???? (if it is there of course).
I hope some of you have the answer.....
Thanks,
Edwin van Geel (SAP Netherlands)

Maggie, I think what David's answer implies is this:
You can't (now, 5.1) use EVDRE to do a suppression based on signeddata.
You can either build your entire report with EVENEs for the expansion, and EVGETs for the data retrieval (basically use the wizard templates) or use an EVENE for the expansion and EVDRE to only retrieve the data. The second option's a bit more complicated to set up, but likely the better approach in terms of performance and future-proofing.
Either way, in the EVENE you use the MDX filter, both to evaluate the data values, and the other filter requirement you have.

How do I disallow negative numbers in a selected group of cells (i.e. only allow values greater than or equal to zero)?

I have a table of calculated values in Numbers, and I want to disallow negative numbers in the entire table. Any numbers that would be negative I would like changed to/displayed as zeroes, that way future calculations that may be based on this cell use the value of 0 for the calculation rather than the negative value. I have seen ways of doing this to single cells at a time, but I am interested in applying it to a large selection of cells.
There is the Conditional Format option when you bring up the inspector, but I cannot get a custom rule to work for me. I select "Greater than or equal to" and I enter 0 in the box, but nothing changes. Can anyone help with this?
Thanks

A step toward simplifying the application of MAX to the issue, Jerry.
This part, though:
Now apply your long, animal-modeling, expressions to this new, interposing, table rather than the original.
may still leave several references to be change from the original data table to the new one.
One way to get around that is to use the Duplicate ("DATA-1) as the new table for raw data, and the Original (DATA) as the interposing table, using the formula =MAX(DATA-1::A2) as above, starting in DATA::A2.
This way, the long expressions could continue to reference the original table (with its content now modified).
ALTERNATE process:
Find/Replace could also be used to speed the process of reassigning the modeling expressions to the duplicate table, as suggested by Jerry. But some cautions apply here.
Find/Replace can be limited to Formulas only, but not to Some formulas only.
Find/Replace can be limited to the Current Sheet only, but this can't be combined with Formulas only.
More on this later, when I've had a chance to check some possibilities.
Regards,
Barry

Update statement with a greater than Value

I created this unique codes and
I need all [FRMDAT] field set to ‘12/31/2014’ in the MKLOPT table, where the [JOBCOD] in the VALUE list BELOW  have a [FRMDAT] that is currently (greater
than) > ‘12/31/2014’
VALUE LIST
PH00059
PH02775
PH03051
PH03305
PH03336
PH03342
PH03371
PH03992
PH03993
PH03994

UPDATE [MKLOPT]
SET [FRMDAT] = '12/31/2014'
WHERE [JOBCOD] IN ( 'PH00059', 'PH02775', 'PH03051', 'PH03305',
'PH03336', 'PH03342', 'PH03371', 'PH03992',
'PH03993', 'PH03994' )
AND [FRMDAT] > '12/31/2014'

Query to select values greater than, where AS clause is used

Oracle 10g
Requesting your help in writing the query correctly.
I have the following 2 tables. The AddProjectPhase and AddProject tables. It is many to many relationship. Each project can have a predefined set of 4 different phases under it. Each phase has a start date and an end date. I am writing a report to get the phases which have a duration greater than, for example, 3 months.
The query below is working fine to just display the list of all the phases along with the duration of each phase. I am not able to modify it to select the phases which have a duration, for example, 3 or more months.
CREATE TABLE "ADDPROJECT"
   (     "VERSIONNO" NUMBER(*,0),
     "PROJID" VARCHAR2(20),
     "PROJNAME" VARCHAR2(60),
     "PROJSTARTDATE" DATE,
     "PROJSTATUS" VARCHAR2(20),
     "PROJENDDATE" DATE,
     "PROJENDTYPE" VARCHAR2(20),
     "PROJENDREASON" VARCHAR2(1000),
     "UCPROJECTMANAGER" VARCHAR2(20),
     "FROMDATE" DATE,
     "TODATE" DATE,
     "SRCHFIELD" VARCHAR2(20),
     "OPERATOR" VARCHAR2(20),
     "PARENTPROJID" VARCHAR2(20),
     "PROJHIDDENDATE" VARCHAR2(20),
      CONSTRAINT "PK_B36" PRIMARY KEY ("PROJID", "PROJHIDDENDATE") ENABLE
CREATE TABLE "ADDPROJECTPHASE"
   (     "VERSIONNO" NUMBER(*,0),
     "PROJPHASEID" NUMBER(9,0),
     "PHASESTARTDATE" DATE,
     "PHASEENDDATE" DATE,
     "RRDATE" DATE,
     "PHASENAME" VARCHAR2(30),
     "PROJPHASESTATUS" VARCHAR2(20),
     "PROJID" VARCHAR2(20),
     "OPERATOR" VARCHAR2(20),
     "FROMDATE" DATE,
     "TODATE" DATE,
     "SRCHFIELD" VARCHAR2(20),
     "REVIEWCOMMENTS" VARCHAR2(1000),
     "PROJHIDDENDATE" VARCHAR2(20),
     "ISUEVALUATION" NUMBER(1,0),
     "SOLUTIONINGTEAMINVOLVEMENT" NUMBER(1,0),
     "ISUNAME" VARCHAR2(20),
      CONSTRAINT "PK_A63" PRIMARY KEY ("PROJPHASEID") ENABLE
   )Below is the query to display the list of all the phases along with the duration of each phase which is working fine.
SELECT pp.phaseName "phasename",
pp.phaseStartDate "phaseStartDate",
pp.phaseEndDate "phaseEndDate",
pp.projPhaseStatus "projPhaseStatus",
ap.projID "projID",
ap.projName "projName",
ap.projHiddenDate "projHiddenDate",
ap.projStartDate "projStartDate",
CASE
    WHEN pp.phaseEndDate IS NOT NULL
    THEN MONTHS_BETWEEN(1+pp.phaseEndDate,pp.phaseStartDate)
    WHEN pp.phaseEndDate IS NULL
    THEN MONTHS_BETWEEN(1+sysDate,pp.phaseStartDate)
    ELSE null
END "phaseMonths"
FROM AddProjectPhase pp, AddProject ap
WHERE ap.projID = pp.projID
AND ap.projHiddenDate = pp.projHiddenDate
ORDER BY ap.projIDHowever the modified query shown below to select all the phases greater than, for example, 3 months, is resulting in
ORA-00904: "PHASEMONTHS": invalid identifier SELECT pp.phaseName, pp.phaseStartDate, pp.phaseEndDate
FROM AddProjectPhase pp, AddProject ap
WHERE ap.projID = pp.projID
AND ap.projHiddenDate = pp.projHiddenDate
AND PhaseMonths IN
(SELECT
(CASE
WHEN pp.phaseEndDate IS NOT NULL
THEN MONTHS_BETWEEN(1+pp.phaseEndDate,pp.phaseStartDate)
WHEN pp.phaseEndDate IS NULL
THEN MONTHS_BETWEEN(1+sysDate,pp.phaseStartDate)
ELSE null
END) AS PhaseMonths
FROM AddProjectPhase pp, AddProject ap
WHERE ap.projID = pp.projID
AND ap.projHiddenDate = pp.projHiddenDate)
ORDER BY ap.projID

Looking for this?
select *
   from (
        SELECT pp.phaseName "phasename"
          , pp.phaseStartDate "phaseStartDate"
          , pp.phaseEndDate "phaseEndDate"
          , pp.projPhaseStatus "projPhaseStatus"
          , ap.projID "projID"
          , ap.projName "projName"
          , ap.projHiddenDate "projHiddenDate"
          , ap.projStartDate "projStartDate"
          , CASE WHEN pp.phaseEndDate IS NOT NULL THEN MONTHS_BETWEEN(1+pp.phaseEndDate,pp.phaseStartDate)
                 WHEN pp.phaseEndDate IS NULL     THEN MONTHS_BETWEEN(1+sysDate,pp.phaseStartDate)
                 ELSE null
            END "phaseMonths"
          FROM AddProjectPhase pp, AddProject ap
         WHERE ap.projID = pp.projID
           AND ap.projHiddenDate = pp.projHiddenDate
         ORDER
            BY ap.projID
where "phaseMonths" >= 3

Report data showing a date 1 day greater than selection formula end date

Hi All,
   I have a report that contains the following selection:
date(dateadd("h",-{Calendar.EstUTCOffset}, {tbl.TimeStamp})) >= date(minimum({?Date})) and date(dateadd("h",-{Calendar.EstUTCOffset}, {tbl.TimeStamp})) <= date(maximum({?Date})) and dayofweek(dateadd("h",-{Calendar.EstUTCOffset}, {tbl.TimeStamp})) in {?DayOfWeek} and
    time(dateadd("h",-{Calendar.EstUTCOffset}, {tbl.TimeStamp})) >= time({?Start Time}) and
    time(dateadd("h",-{Calendar.EstUTCOffset}, {tbl.TimeStamp})) < time({?End Time})
When I view the report, if my date(maximum({?Date})) is 5/1/2011, the report shows data for 5/2/2011. I can't seem to figure out why my report is generating data for a date that is 1 day greater than my end date.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Thank you in advance,

No need to send SQL as dates are not in WHERE clause.
It someting to do with the way crystal handles datetimes
If you want to see dates up to an including 6/2/2011 if its a date time crystal will create a where caluse
Datetimefield <= 6/3/2011 00:00:00
Looks like when this is converted to date its stayin as 6/3/2011
Sorry can't think of any solutions, also I live in UK so just about to leave, hopefully some one else may be able to offer a solution.
Ian

Reversal quantity greater than the ref. issue qty.

Hi All,
With the goods Issue to cost centers, with movt type 201, the system gives a material document.
When I refer the same material docuemnt number for the complete / partial reversal (with movt type 202) system is allowing more quantity than the referred original issue quantity.
Ex.- If I issue 10 EA of a material to cost center, system is allowing to make reversals (202) of more quantity (say 50 EA) for the same material, even after I refer the 201 material document in the transaction MIGO.
Please advise.
Thanks.
Karthik

I didnt find any Message Control during MB1A 201 Reversal.
I would suggest you to use MIGO with Cacellation Category and Give MB1A 201 Reference document number and try.
If you Refer 210 Document no system, then you will no thave possibility to change qty etc during reversal.
Regards,
Ashok

How does Math.ceil work for values greater than 0 and less than 1?

What does Math.ceil(0.67) return? I thought it would round it off to 1. Does it not? Which method returns 1? Can someone please help me?

pradeep_chanda wrote:
Is that the problem - long/long ??
Code:
long suggestedOrderQuantity = 20,000; //computed value
long minimumOrderQuantity = 198,000; //computed value
int multiple = (int) Math.ceil(suggestedOrderQuantity / minimumOrderQuantity));
value of multiple is 0.You really need to post complete code.
public class Temp {
     public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{
          long a = 20000;
          long b = 198000;
          System.out.println(a / b);
}This prints 0. Do you know why?

Tuning Greater than predicate query on dates

Hi,
I have the below query which is doing FTS and is very expensive causing load to timeout.
I did my analysis and found that table is having large number of records and hence FTS is taking long time causing timeout from app side.
I proposed to have this table partitioned but this is still pending with business and they in meantime want some solution other solution to fix this issue.
below is the query and plan
SELECT TRANSACTION_LOG.ID, TRANSACTION_LOG.USER_IDENTIFIER, TRANSACTION_LOG.START_TIME, TRANSACTION_LOG.END_TIME, TRANSACTION_LOG.REQUEST, TRANSACTION_LOG.RESPONSE
FROM
WP61PD1COLTRDB.TRANSACTION_LOG
WHERE TRANSACTION_LOG.END_TIME > TO_DATE('07/26/2012 10:16:41','MM/DD/YYYY hh24:mi:ss')
Plan hash value: 2462480644
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 5 | 5360 | 1480K (1)| 04:56:09 |
|* 1 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| TRANSACTION_LOG | 5 | 5360 | 1480K (1)| 04:56:09 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
1 - filter("TRANSACTION_LOG"."END_TIME">TIMESTAMP' 2012-07-26 10:16:41')
Count of no. of records:
select count(*) from WP61PD1COLTRDB.TRANSACTION_LOG
COUNT(*)
43537767
There is only one index on ID column of the table which is normal index.
desc WP61PD1COLTRDB.TRANSACTION_LOG
Name Null Type
ID NOT NULL NUMBER(38)
USER_IDENTIFIER NOT NULL VARCHAR2(255)
CLIENT_IP_ADDRESS VARCHAR2(255)
START_TIME NOT NULL TIMESTAMP(6)
END_TIME NOT NULL TIMESTAMP(6)
REQUEST NOT NULL VARCHAR2(4000)
RESPONSE VARCHAR2(4000)
Is there any other way we can tune this query?
Thanks
JP

Please read the FAQ for how to post a tuning request and the information that is needed (e.g. table and index ddl, record counts for the tables, record counts for the predicates in the where clause)
>
I have the below query which is doing FTS and is very expensive causing load to timeout.
>
Just how can a SELECT query cause a 'load' to timeout?
>
Is there any other way we can tune this query?
>
There is no way to know since you didn't provide any information about how many records there are in the table and how many might satisfy the date predicate you are using.
Other than doing the query in parallel you can't speed it up unless there was an index on END_TIME that could be used effectively.
Even with an index on that column a full table scan that does multi-block reads might be lower cost than using the index and doing single-block reads.
If the table has 100 million records and your query is trying to return 99 million of them don't you think a full table scan should be used?

Less Than operator not working, Greater Than operator works comparing dates

I need to compare dates to conditionally display a row. If the DateDueJulian_ID5<= AsOfDate_ID47 display otherwise don't. I get all rows but if I reverse the logic >= the condition works and only displays the one matching row.
I am using the Template Builder 10.1.3.4.1 and WORD 2007.
Any help is appreciated!
Thanks
XML Source:
<Header_Section_S3>
<Delinquency_Report_ID225>DELINQUENCY NOTICE</Delinquency_Report_ID225>
<VersionName_ID270>0001</VersionName_ID270>
<Report_or_Video_Title_ID53></Report_or_Video_Title_ID53>
<Remit_To_Text_ID68>Remit To:</Remit_To_Text_ID68>
<RemitToAddressLine1_ID2>XXXXX</RemitToAddressLine1_ID2>
<XX_XX_XX_ID259>2010-08-25</XX_XX_XX_ID259>
<Date__ID258>Date</Date__ID258>
<RemitToAddressLine2_ID5></RemitToAddressLine2_ID5>
<RemitToAddressLine3_ID8></RemitToAddressLine3_ID8>
<As_of_Date__ID46>As of Date</As_of_Date__ID46>
<AsOfDate_ID47>2007-11-29</AsOfDate_ID47>
<A_R_Delinquency_Notice_Detail_Join_S2>
<DocVoucherInvoiceE_ID1>1897265</DocVoucherInvoiceE_ID1>
<DateInvoiceJ_ID3>2007-10-11</DateInvoiceJ_ID3>
<DateDueJulian_ID5>2007-12-10</DateDueJulian_ID5>
<NameRemark_ID7></NameRemark_ID7>
<AmountOpen_ID11></AmountOpen_ID11>
<AddressNumber_ID17></AddressNumber_ID17>
<UniqueKeyIDInternal_ID19></UniqueKeyIDInternal_ID19>
<KAV_CustomerPONumber_ID23></KAV_CustomerPONumber_ID23>
</A_R_Delinquency_Notice_Detail_Join_S2>
<A_R_Delinquency_Notice_Detail_Join_S2>
<DocVoucherInvoiceE_ID1>1897265</DocVoucherInvoiceE_ID1>
<DateInvoiceJ_ID3>2007-10-11</DateInvoiceJ_ID3>
<DateDueJulian_ID5>2007-11-10</DateDueJulian_ID5>
<NameRemark_ID7></NameRemark_ID7>
<AmountOpen_ID11></AmountOpen_ID11>
<AddressNumber_ID17></AddressNumber_ID17>
<UniqueKeyIDInternal_ID19></UniqueKeyIDInternal_ID19>
<KAV_CustomerPONumber_ID23></KAV_CustomerPONumber_ID23>
</A_R_Delinquency_Notice_Detail_Join_S2>
RTF:
<?for-each:Header_Section_S3?>
<?if:DateDueJulian_ID5 <= AsOfDate_ID47?>
<?DocVoucherInvoiceE_ID1?>
<?DateDueJulian_ID5?>
<?AsOfDate_ID47?>
<?end if?>
<?end for-each?>

Found the solution! Use Date_Diff.
<?if:xdoxslt:date_diff('d',DateDueJulian_ID5,AsOfDate_ID47,$_XDOLOCALE,$_XDOTIMEZONE)>=0?>

Post park ivoice M8079 'Reversal value greater than value invoiced to date'

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for