Quantity should come automatically in MI04

Hi,
We want that in transaction MI04, Quantity should come automatically.
Suppose there are 10 line items in MI04. In 1st 8 line items, we insert the Quantity manually but not in last 2.
We want that in last 2 line items, Quantity must pick automatically from system. Please let me know, how it come automatically or pick from system.
Is it possible or not???
Regards.

Is it possible through User Exit or Enhancement point.
Please explain, where i can change the structure according my issue...
Please help..
Edited by: @ABAP@ on Oct 6, 2009 1:22 PM

Similar Messages

Quantity should come automatically in MI04 line items

Hi,
Suppose there are 10 line items in MI04. In 1st five line items against material, we insert the Quantity but not for last 5.
We want that in last 5 line items, Quantity must pick automatically from system. Means in last 5, Perpetual Inventory quantity should come automatically.
please let me know, how it come automatically or pick from system.
Regards..
Edited by: @ABAP@ on Oct 5, 2009 6:03 PM

certainly not.
Get user and auditors together. this may already make this request obsolete.
Edited by: Jürgen L. on Oct 5, 2009 3:10 PM

Forwarding Agent should come automatically in Sales order

Hi Experts,
My user's requirement is Forwarding agent should come automatically in Sales order at partners tab.
Can you please suggest what configuration do ineed to do,
To get this Forwarding agent automatically in sales order level.
Regards,
Sunina

Hi Sunaina,
create a vendor with XK01 with the required Forwardng Agent. At the time of creating customer master record assing this FA. Now at the time of sales order creation this FA is defaulted automatically.
Incase you have multiple FA's then also you assign all of them to customer master partner tab with partner function FA.
During sales it will give you a pop up to select the required FA.
Make sure that partner function FA (or incase if you have created a new also) this is assigned to the account group of customer master you are using.
I hope this answers your query.
regards
sadhu kishore

TANN item quantity should come in grey mode in sales order

Hi,
Requirement is in a sales order for TANN item category the quantity should come in non editable (GREY) mode.For this as per my search in Google and forums i got the suggestion to use the "USEREXIT_FIELD_MODIFICATION in MV45AFZZ".But my technical (ABAP) is required more clarity about doing this. Can anybody suggest me in detail how to give logic for him?
For few cases For one sales organisation and for few distribution channels only this quantity should come in grey mode.
Suggest me how to achieve this.

hi
in the user exit perform lyk this
loop at screen
if screen name = 'tann'
if field contains value .
screen-input = '0'
modify scrren.
endif.
endif.
endloop.
thanks
chaitanya.

Confirmed quantity should come equal to order quantity

Hi Friends,
I have created one sales order and when I am going thruGo to>item data-->schedule lines then confirmed quantity is showing zero(0).
I want that confirmed quantity should come equal to order quantity.
Regards

Hi friends,
When I am trying with mov. type 561 or other and entering the material ,quantity,st. location and saving then getting the below error.
Any pointers.
G/L account 11500888 blocked for posting in company code 730
Message no. M7 161
Diagnosis
No postings can be made to a G/L account that is blocked.
Procedure
Determine whether another G/L account is suitable for the transaction.
Inform the individual or section responsible for G/L accounts in the relevant company code.
2.Also if I am trying with other matrl( having sufficient unrestricted stock available) then for that also quantities are not matching. why like this ?
Regards
Edited by: Amit Kumar on Nov 7, 2008 5:07 AM

Reg.condition types should come automatically during CR and Billing creatio

Dear Friends
I create new condition types for MRP price and other taxes which is working fine but I have to be entered each time when I create CR and Billing, I want those conditions which is mentioned in the procedure-.control data should come automatically during the the CR and Billing. Please advice me. Previously I got a reply that should create condition record for each condition in VK11,HOW it is possible ?
I didnot assign any access sequence to my conditions which is newly created, so that the above problem could be arrived?
Thanks in advance
Rajakumar.K

Hi,
If there is access sequence then it is possible to bring condition in sales document automatically.
for this Just create on dummy access sequence and assign to condition type
Generate table with combination of only sales organization by V/03
Create access sequence by V/07 and assign this table
Assign this access sequence to condition type
in V/06 under change can be made tab for Manual entries put blank (No limitations)
Maintain condition record for condition type (with price or without price)
Then condition will come automatically
kapil

Destination storage unit should come automatically

Hi All,
I have created process order and released the same, staging also completed successfully.
when Iam trying to create a TO for TR, destination storage unit is not coming automatically.
we have a requirement it should come automatically.
can u please help me out.
Kuber

Hi,
Yes....It is SU managed only, still i am unable to get Dest SU automatically.
Please advice on this.
Regards,
Kuber

Field value should come Automatically

Hi Experts..
I hav a requirement,
In transaction QA32 -> Usage Decision(UD) -> Inspection Lot Tab (Program SAPMQEVA 0102) -> In this screen Storage Location Field (screen field : RQEVA-QLGO_VM01 ) should come Automatically .
Logic :based MATNR value It will Pick the Corresponding LGFSB Value from MARC Table
how to resolve this Issue ??
Pls help me out
Thanks in Advance
Satya

Hi
In User Exit QEVA0006 i hav to add the logic...
FM : EXIT_SAPMQEVA_006 .
Include : INCLUDE ZXQEVU07.
can u please help me out in writing code that Include Program ?? What to write in Importing and Exporting Parameters ??
Thanks in Advance
Satya

Output type should come Automatically in the material document

Hi All,
How the output type will come automatically in the material document after doing some material movement through MB1C.
Regards
Bapu

Hi Bapu
Are u asking how it is coming or you want the output to come for MB1C.
Please check Tcode OMBR there select print version, and you can see for Tcode MB1C settings should be there.(i.e. print version must be maintained there).
regards
Yogesh

Free of goods should come automatically back when creates return sales order

Dear sd experts
I Know one thing that free goods wont come back ,, for ex when we create return sales order free goods wont come bz in VTAF copy requirement 302
it means dont copy free goods
Now i went VOV7--- for item category TANN-- i have maintained billing relevance A it means free goods items will come in to billing
now when i am creating return sales order with reference to billing Free goods are not coming
My doubt is suppose if my clinte asks free goods will come automatically when creates returns how to do it ?

Hi Ali,
I just checked and understand in the below way:
When I Do the PGI system is posting say 50 USD to COGS. But, when I do the Invoice ( 100 USD is credited to sales account and 100 is debited to discount account) So at the end 100 is getting Nullified. But, when we see P&L account you will COGS of 50 USD.
I checked along with my FI consultant and she confirmed that its posting as per expected way only.
Let me know if you need more details here.
Regards, Sai Krishna.

G/L account should come automatically in ML 81N

Dear all;
I have one requirement as belo:
For Service procurement the service G/L account should automatically come at the time of PO creattion.
I have configured as below
1 ) Created Valueation Class 3200 for service in development client.
2) Created Material group for Service : Service
3) Assign the material Group in the " Entry Aids without material master to valueation class 3200
4) OBYC:
   For GBB :
General Modifier          Valueation Class         G/L account
VBB                             3200                              18380100
For WRX
Valuation Modifier                 Valueation Class              G/L   account
1101                                           Blank                            10800300
Service A/c   18380100
Clearing A/c 10800300
Still the G/L account is not coming automatically in the PO creation time for service.
Kindly Suggest.
Thanmking You;
Best Regards;
Joydeep Mukherjee

Hi,
Create an account modifier ( a copy of VBR) and alll assignment with t.codes: OME9, OMGO & OBYC
Check link how set default a GL account for a material group/service group when a purchase order is created without a material master( for service)
http://www.bluemarlinsys.com/ns/0603-03.asp
Regards,
Biju K

Interdivision entry should come automatically in SAP

Hi Gurus,
We have four business areas under one company code 1000 . Since the bank limits are merged and common , realisation from customers and payment to vendors are received or paid from bank accounts of Business area 6100.
The team of Accounts at head office passes entries in Business Area 6100 since payment is received or payment is made from bank accounts of head office. They pass entry through inter division , if realisation from customer or payment to vendor pertains to other business areas.
Since , this is mirror accunting , these converse entries in other business areas should be passed through system autmatically.
Pl advise how i can cofigure it.
Regards,
Samar

Hi,
If you have a strong business case for New GL, then go ahead, else I would suggest you continue with what you are doing.
The business area issue can be resolved by periodically executing the business area adjustment run, which will balance out the business areas. This is a periodic activity, so do not expect online reporting. Whenever, there is a need to execute business area balance sheets for reporting/audit purposes, execute the run.
You do this from here:
Subsequent Business Area Adjustment u2013 Calculate
Accounting -> Financial accounting -> General ledger -> Periodic processing -> Closing -> Reclassify -> Balance Sheet Readjustment -> Calculate F.5D
Subsequent Business Area Adjustment u2013 Post
Accounting -> Financial accounting -> General ledger -> Periodic processing -> Closing -> Reclassify -> Balance Sheet Readjustment -> Post F.5E
cheers.

Re: Whence should come the frameworks?

At 03:44 PM 6/20/98 +0200, Daniel Nguyen wrote (on the polymorphic
polymorphism thread:
Is it a battle between Forte and Sage ?One hopes not, but this reminds me of an interesting question that I would
like to throw out for comment. With any product like Forte, any given
release can only cover so much. Some of what it does not include is core
infrastructure and for that one has simply to work around or wait. But,
there is also a lot which it does not cover which is within the scope of
others to provide. This is particularly apparent in the case of Express
and Conductor where one can clearly extend that which comes from Forte or,
to be more extreme, one can offer an alternative, especially in the case of
Express.
These extensions and alternatives are really a necessary part of getting
work done, but for those with a mind to it, they also present a business
opportunity, either for direct sale to other Forte shops or as a part of
the value-add in a consulting agreement. But, as one moves on to
subsequent releases, there is a natural tension which arises because Forte
is likely to incorporate some of these same extensions into the product.
E.g., various frameworks have provided security components, but R4 will
have its own security component. Forte is also likely to provide
extensions to Express which are not already in a competing framework and
users of that framework will then not benefit automatically by that
extension unless the framework provider works to include the extension as
well.
My impression, correct or not, is that most framework providers are
offering their products as alternatives to Express and, as such, are
essentially competing with future versions of Express. I.e., in the
current release, one can argue that the competing framework is a better
foundation, but if future versions of Express make substantial strides, as
seems to be the expectation, then the providers of that framework have the
difficult task of making equal or greater strides in order for it to
continue to be the case that their offering is still arguably better.
At least one company, DS Data, has taken the alternate position of layering
their products on Express and Conductor. This would seem to put their
users in a somewhat better growth position since future extensions to
Express should be fairly easily incorporated, either by replacing the
previously external component or simply by being added to what is
available. One might argue that this graceful growth potential has been
achieved at the compromise of having to accept the Express and Conductor
foundations as given, but the importance of this is something we each will
have to judge for ourselves. But, even DS Data has the risk that Express
and/or will advance so rapidly as to take over all of the added features
and functionality now provided by their extensions. Their customers should
be OK since this will simply that the extensions are subsumed into the
core, but it does mean that they either lose a product in the future or
have the challenging task of continuing to stay meaningfully ahead.
It seems clear that the more that comes from Forte itself, the more the
Forte community as a whole benefits so I would hope that no one would
advocate that Forte curtail its framework development in order to leave
that market open for the partners. But, if Forte does proceed agressively
on framework development, then, to some extent, it is competing with
partners that provide frameworks. Moreover, as partners do create core
functionality like frameworks, they are creating things which would benefit
the Forte community as a whole, but they cannot expect the whole community
to purchase their framework. I.e., Company X may have some piece of their
framework which is particularly useful, but Company Y has something else
and neither are integrated with Express which one may have chosen if for no
other reason than to stay in optimal tune with what Forte is doing. As
things stand, unless these pieces can be componentialized and the companies
involved are willing to offer them as such as separate products, the only
way the Express user has of getting this functionality is to develop it
themselves or wait for Forte to add it to Express.
What I would like to ask, then, is what people think of what it is that
Forte could do to make this overall structure work better? Not that I see
it as working badly, especially compared to some other environments that I
have seen, but just that there are some real problems without obvious easy
answers.
=========================================================================
Thomas Mercer-Hursh, Ph.D email: [email protected]
Computing Integrity, Inc. sales: 510-233-9329
550 Casey Drive - Cypress Point support: 510-233-9327
Point Richmond, CA 94801-3751 fax: 510-233-6950
To unsubscribe, email '[email protected]' with
'unsubscribe forte-users' as the body of the message.
Searchable thread archive <URL:http://pinehurst.sageit.com/listarchive/>

Thomas,
I think you have brought up a really good question and one that deserves
some attention by all:
customers, partners and Forte. The advent of third-party tools for the
Forte marketplace is an interesting prospect. If I take my companies
product (SCAFFOLDS), the original impetus for building such a thing, was not
to offer an alternative to Forte Express, but to offer an alternative to
building applications with raw Forte. And as such, we have not targeted,
feature compared or analyzed Forte Express to help build or sell any part of
our product.
I think the reason for this is that many of us in the framework business do
not see ourselves as having a competing product to Forte Express. The
reason for this is that we have taken on applications with our products that
Forte themselves would not pitch Express at. The architectural descriptions
in SCAFFOLDS have been used to do everything from simple to very complex GUI
development to Database persistence or communications to satellites.
Because of this, there is some overlap of functionality, but certainly we
see Forte Express being used for a much more limited class of application.
I would question the assertion that it is good for Forte to build more. I
think Forte, like any company, has a limited amount of engineering muscle.
With this muscle they should be concentrating on their core products that
make the company profitable. If I look at their product line-up, clearly
the Forte Development Tool is the make or break product. They should rely
more on the marketplace to provide solutions for things that are outside of
their core products. I sort of take the opposite tact. It seems clear that
the more a third party marketplace finds outlets for their solutions the
more diverse solutions we are likely find in that marketplace. As an
example, if you look at the Visual Basic marketplace, clearly it is big with
many, many solutions because Microsoft defined some specs for add in
components and let the marketplace provide solutions.
I think Forte could spend more time opening up their tool for additions by
third-party vendors. For example, things like object introspection, an open
repository and dynamically adding widget types would do wonders for the
number and kinds of solutions that would exist in the Forte marketplace
today if this was done a version or two ago. Instead, I think Forte spent
much of their engineering muscle on other kinds of products, like Forte
Express. Whether this strategy will pay of for them remains to be seen, but
certainly if they enter the Java world, they will have to change their
current strategy with regard to support to third-party solutions. The Java
marketplace is very diverse today and Forte will have to allow more
third-party integration to be taken seriously in that market.
Mark Perreira
Sage IT Partners.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[<a href="mailto:[email protected]">mailto:[email protected]]On</a> Behalf Of Thomas Mercer-Hursh,
Ph.D.
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 1998 11:19 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Whence should come the frameworks?
At 03:44 PM 6/20/98 +0200, Daniel Nguyen wrote (on the polymorphic
polymorphism thread:
Is it a battle between Forte and Sage ?One hopes not, but this reminds me of an interesting question that I would
like to throw out for comment. With any product like Forte, any given
release can only cover so much. Some of what it does not include is core
infrastructure and for that one has simply to work around or wait. But,
there is also a lot which it does not cover which is within the scope of
others to provide. This is particularly apparent in the case of Express
and Conductor where one can clearly extend that which comes from Forte or,
to be more extreme, one can offer an alternative, especially in
the case of
Express.
These extensions and alternatives are really a necessary part of getting
work done, but for those with a mind to it, they also present a business
opportunity, either for direct sale to other Forte shops or as a part of
the value-add in a consulting agreement. But, as one moves on to
subsequent releases, there is a natural tension which arises because Forte
is likely to incorporate some of these same extensions into the product.
E.g., various frameworks have provided security components, but R4 will
have its own security component. Forte is also likely to provide
extensions to Express which are not already in a competing framework and
users of that framework will then not benefit automatically by that
extension unless the framework provider works to include the extension as
well.
My impression, correct or not, is that most framework providers are
offering their products as alternatives to Express and, as such, are
essentially competing with future versions of Express. I.e., in the
current release, one can argue that the competing framework is a better
foundation, but if future versions of Express make substantial strides, as
seems to be the expectation, then the providers of that framework have the
difficult task of making equal or greater strides in order for it to
continue to be the case that their offering is still arguably better.
At least one company, DS Data, has taken the alternate position
of layering
their products on Express and Conductor. This would seem to put their
users in a somewhat better growth position since future extensions to
Express should be fairly easily incorporated, either by replacing the
previously external component or simply by being added to what is
available. One might argue that this graceful growth potential has been
achieved at the compromise of having to accept the Express and Conductor
foundations as given, but the importance of this is something we each will
have to judge for ourselves. But, even DS Data has the risk that Express
and/or will advance so rapidly as to take over all of the added features
and functionality now provided by their extensions. Their
customers should
be OK since this will simply that the extensions are subsumed into the
core, but it does mean that they either lose a product in the future or
have the challenging task of continuing to stay meaningfully ahead.
It seems clear that the more that comes from Forte itself, the more the
Forte community as a whole benefits so I would hope that no one would
advocate that Forte curtail its framework development in order to leave
that market open for the partners. But, if Forte does proceed agressively
on framework development, then, to some extent, it is competing with
partners that provide frameworks. Moreover, as partners do create core
functionality like frameworks, they are creating things which
would benefit
the Forte community as a whole, but they cannot expect the whole community
to purchase their framework. I.e., Company X may have some piece of their
framework which is particularly useful, but Company Y has something else
and neither are integrated with Express which one may have chosen
if for no
other reason than to stay in optimal tune with what Forte is doing. As
things stand, unless these pieces can be componentialized and the
companies
involved are willing to offer them as such as separate products, the only
way the Express user has of getting this functionality is to develop it
themselves or wait for Forte to add it to Express.
What I would like to ask, then, is what people think of what it is that
Forte could do to make this overall structure work better? Not that I see
it as working badly, especially compared to some other environments that I
have seen, but just that there are some real problems without obvious easy
answers.
=========================================================================
Thomas Mercer-Hursh, Ph.D email: [email protected]
Computing Integrity, Inc. sales: 510-233-9329
550 Casey Drive - Cypress Point support: 510-233-9327
Point Richmond, CA 94801-3751 fax: 510-233-6950
To unsubscribe, email '[email protected]' with
'unsubscribe forte-users' as the body of the message.
Searchable thread archive <URL:<a href=
"http://pinehurst.sageit.com/listarchive/">http://pinehurst.sageit.com/listarchive/</a>>
>
To unsubscribe, email '[email protected]' with
'unsubscribe forte-users' as the body of the message.
Searchable thread archive <URL:<a href=
"http://pinehurst.sageit.com/listarchive/">http://pinehurst.sageit.com/listarchive/</a>>

Vendor debit balance should come in sundry debtor balance

Hi, Gurus
My problem is that my client wants that if a vendor has debit balance than it should be treated as sundry debtor (Current Asset) and balance should come in sundry debtor reco. GL, similarly if a Customer has credit balance than it should be treated as sundry creditor (Current liability) and it should come in to sundry creditor balance.SAP provides overall debit/credit balance of Reco. Gl, my requirement is per vendor/customer wise i,e if Mr. X is a vendor and he has credit balance of say Rs.1000/- than its ok but another vendor say Mr. Y has debit balance of Rs. 7000/- than it should come in sundry debtor GL, what SAP is doing it will show debit balance in sundry creditor Reco. GL.
Please help me and provide appropriate solution.
Thanks & Regards
Anuraj

Hi ,
you need to perform closing operations for Accounts Recievable /Payable to achieve your client requirement.
Please read below SAP help.
Customers in Credit and Vendors in Debit
A credit balance on a customer account should be displayed as a payable; conversely, a debit balance on a vendor account should be displayed as a receivable. If such a situation arises, the program makes the appropriate adjustment postings automatically.
To do this, the system determines the total for each account and reconciliation account. This guarantees that special G/L transactions, for example down payments and bills of exchange are displayed separately from the payables and receivables. Accounts with the same consolidation company ID are considered together.
The receivables account in the figure above identifies a credit balance of $2000 for Customer 3. This payable is to be displayed in the balance sheet under the item "Other payables". You therefore transfer the amount to the account of that name. The receivables account is adjusted by a posting to the adjustment account.
Prerequisites
Since you cannot post to the reconciliation accounts directly, the system makes adjustment postings for you. You should display the reconciliation account and the adjustment account under the same balance sheet item. The system posts the offsetting entry to a G/L account, under which the payable (or receivable) is now displayed in the balance sheet. You must have defined the account numbers for the adjustment accounts and the accounts for the offsetting entries in the system already. The posting keys are already defined in the standard system.
To define the account numbers, select the activity Define adjustment acts for reclassifying payabl./receivables in the Accounts Receivable and Accounts Payable Implementation Guide.
Regards,
Lakshmu

Application should start automatically as soon the user logs into windows.

Hello All,
I have a requirement.
I am developed a time sheet application using web dynpro. This application is configured on the portal & is working fine. Now, I want to make some changes, may be at Portal Content side or Application side, but want this -
As soon as the User loges into the Windows with user id & password, this timesheet application residing on the portal should start automatically and should record the time. Similarly, if the user shuts-down, the application should again record the time. Thus giving the actual time the user worked.
Please reply. Thanks.
Best Regards
Chander Kararia

Hello Satyajit,
Below are the comments on your queries.
1. It would be better if the application starts silently. But, in case, if we choose other way i.e the browser opens automatically and displays the application (expecting the button needs to be clicked by the user) that will also do.
2. In case of system shut-down, I am still to come up with some materialized concept. But, here are few ideas...
a). The application should check if the time entry is available for the current date. If so, should display the text for LogOut only. This will make user understand not to hit it.
b). It should keep on accepting all the sessions (logging & logout) n number of times for the current date.
I would prefer (b) as a better option.
If you have some more conceptual idea, please suggest.
Best Regards
Chander Kararia

Quantity should come automatically in MI04

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for