Tolerance issue - Lockbox

Hi SAP Experts,
Why the payment through the lockbox is not showing cleared in the customer account even with $99.99 for $100.00 invoice. But able to clear if payment is made manually by F-28.
I checked all the tolerances with $50 and 10%
Thanks & Regards,
Sim

Did you find the solution for this Marilyn?
I am having the same issue where if the program finds the invoice, regardless of the amount, it post and clear leaving the difference on the account.
Odd thing is it wasn't doing this a month ago? We have had a lof ot configuration changes and I am going through those but we can't understand what would impact this?
Can you share? Was your issue resolved?
Thanks!

Similar Messages

Delivery Confirmation Tolerance Issue for TD Shipment

Hi Experts
While trying to do delivery confirmation facing the issue .Please refer the screenshot attached .
Can anyone suggest how to rectify this problem .

ear MM DT,
Kindly assign SPRO --> Industry Oil & Gas (Downstream) -> TD -> TD Bulk Shipment -> Define TD Tolerances. Here, you need to assign the
TD Action + Shipment Type + Vehicle Type +Production Grp + RC + Qty From + % from + Qty to + % To.

Invoice Tolerance Issue / Tax Issue

Hi ,
if a invoice is posted with amount variation and if the variation is within the tolerance limits, then SAP generates two lines to be posted, the first line is the actual amount on PO and the other line contains the difference amount.
we want to stop applying tax on the second line, and post it to a separate GL account . is that possible , if so how can this funcationality be acheived.
Maruti.

That's probably a config issue. You should talk to your business analyst.
Rob

Customer Tolerance settings - Lockbox

Hi all !
In cutomer tolerance settings required for the Lockbox process, the only thing we have to bother about is Permitted payment differences right? should we also have to consider the Payment advice differences( is it mandatory?)
Help will be appreciated.
Points will be rewarded,
Thanks

hi om,
In Customer Master record in the General Data - Payment transactions enter:
- Bank Key - which is routing number of the Customer's Bank Account
- Bank Account - Customer Bank Account number.
Another point, I did not mention earlier is in Customer Master - Company Code data - Payment transactions enter the lockbox key.
You can also read the documentation at the following links:
http://academic.uofs.edu/faculty/gramborw/sap/lockbox.htm
http://www.sap-img.com/financial/using-the-lock-box-files-sap-fi.htm
http://help.sap.com/bp_blv1500/BL_US/documentation/Scenarios/V1D_BPP_EN_US.doc
http://help.sap.com/bp_bblibrary/500/Documentation/J03_AR_Lockbox_BPP_EN_US.doc
reward me the points....
ranjit

Delivery Tolerance Issue

My customer creates Customer Material Info of Material Z with Delivery tolerance (over 0.0/under 0.0)
And in Customer Master with delivery tolerance (over 0.0/ under 5.0)
when I create order system user delivery tolorance from Customer Material Info instead of Customer Material info
But my customer want to user delivery tolerance from Customer Master. What should I do?

Hi
Any information which is maintained in CMIR will have the prefernce in sales orders than CMR or MMR or oyther masters
Because CMIR is a precise information
You cannot change this standard logic of the system
So CMIR will only be used if maintained
If you want the CMR recors should get defauted in the sales order then simple thing dont maintain CMIR for that combination
otherwise you cannot achieve your requirement
when I create order system user delivery tolorance from Customer Material Info
instead of Customer Material info
this query is not clear
If you want data in CMR should have the preference than CMIR then that is not possible
Regards
Raja
Edited by: ramanathan raja on Nov 3, 2009 2:20 PM

Lockbox issue - lockbox upload but not data in the FEBA_LOCKBOX reprocess

hi,
i have problem on the lockbox processing. when uploading a lockbox FLB2, an message pop-up mentioned something was bolcked, but the uploading over this message and the importing step finished. Then i go to posting the checks use FEBA_LOCKBOX, but i can't see any checks in the preivously uploading and it has the total batch amount zero.
The lockbox file has the check infor mation, and it uploaded but when i want to posting there is no check infomation in the checkbox number. I want to reupload the checkbox but system give the message the lockbox has been uploaded. what should i do to solve this? is there any way to reverse the previous uploading and to upload the lockbox file again? Please adise.
Thansk in advance

problem solved by run the report RFEBKA96

Delivery Notes picking tolerance issue

Dear Guru,
we have the sales order , item 10, qty = 10 pcs,
DN qty = 10 pcs
but when W/H to do the picking , only found the 9 pcs,
so we requirement : can the picking qty automatic overwrite to the delivery notes qty,
and the sales order can automatic closed ?
Thanks.

Go to Logistics Execution-Warehouse Management-Interfaces-Shipping-Define Shipping Control-Define Shipping Control at the Movement Type Level, Give Copy WM quantity as 1 (Copy WM quantity as delivery quantity into delivery) against you W/H and Movement type 601(if standard).

Fault Tolerance in WebServices

hi..
can any one explain the fault tolerance issues in SOAP1.1 and can u pls say if those issues are handled in SOAP1.2..
thanks in advance
Yuva Priya

Hi,
have you also looked at the restrictions this FT feature has? As far as my information goes it can only be used with 1 CPU, not to mention the overhead it produces, since all instructions have to be executed on 2 nodes.
Also this feature only helps you if your whole guest system crashes. What if your software inside the VM crashes? It will not run in both environments.
If you are looking for real HA (in virtualized environments), I suggest using RAC in OVM. It will get you down to 30 seconds but will do far better regarding functionality.
Sebastian

Clearing Payment to a G/L account set up in Reason Code

I am having a problem posting an overpayment/underpayment to a G/L account using a reason code. What I am attempting to do is, using F-28, have the remainder of an underpayment post to a G/L account attached to the reason codes. What I need to have work is that in F-28 I do not want to have to enter any data on what the residual amount is, it should just take whatever is not paid and apply it to the G/L account tied to the reason code. I have set 3 new reason codes in OBBE to test different possibilities with the checkboxes in that transaction, and have attached each of the reason codes to accounts using OBXL. What is happening now is that when I enter a short pay amount for an invoice and I enter a reason code in the RCd field in the residual tab - I hit save and it seems to try to attach the remaining amount to an account that is currently tied to a blank reason code in our setup in OBXL. I would think that since I am placing a code in the RCD field, that it would use the account tied to that. I have also tried to use the reason code field below, but encounter the same results or, with one of my codes that has the "charge off difference via separate account" checkbox checked, it will not allow that code in that field below.
There must be a way to take the shortpay amoun,t and without entering the residual amount anywhere, use the G/L account tied to the reason code to post the remainder to. Can anybody help on what I may need to do to get this to work?
Thanks -
PS. This is not a tolerance issue as I have set the tolerances for both the customer and the user high enough to allow under/overpayments.

No... this is SAP standard.... if you are treating them as residual payment and the GL is seperate than the small diff GL we have to enter the amount there..... as system cannot understand whats the differnece when we dont put the amount there......
we can always see the field NOT ASSIGNED in the bootom.. it is just the matter of copy paste for the user.... it has to come thro user discipline.... i dont see a standard sap way of doing it,....

Look Here - How to install Leopard on G5s

I have had all of the issues... source media bad, voiceover thing not verifiable - in fact the Leopard installation process has been terribly problematic at all levels... and I have had no success - until now.
I received a hint from a comment at the Apple Store Bar thing... The guy said it was bad memory. But this is in itself a bit suspicious... I mean define "bad".
First the memory is all Apple certified etc. It has been running in my G5 since day 3 of getting the Tower. I have two utilities - one supplied by Apple Care - reporting the memory is good... so "bad" might mean it is being declared bad by something in the installer. Especially because of the following tests:
Memory testing application says memory "Passed" all of the tests
Deleted drives, repartitioned etc... and in each case below I completely repartitioned etc.
Installed 10.3 from cd - no issues
Stared over
Installed 10.4 from cd - no issues
Started over
Installed 10.5 from DVD - fails with media error - after verify good and 4.6 gigs of install
Start over
Installed 10.5 from FW HD copy of DVD - fails with media error - after verify, and several disk checks etc. and 4.6 gigs of install
Removed one of my hard drives
Start over
Installed 10.5 - fails at a different point, but in the same manner
Remove 4 of 4.5 gigs of RAM
Start over
Installed 10.5 from DVD - Success! But it took almost twice as long!
So it looks like the RAM really is bad... I mean it is "bad" to the 10.5 installer process. It is good everywhere else. And of course, even before the very first reboot for the new OS, I stopped it from re-powering up and I reinstalled all of the RAM... runs like a champ... and it likes my "bad" memory.
But now I want this running on the hardware configuration I want and that Apple says is supported... I want it on a stripped RAID set. Here is the plan!
Currently making a sparse image, of the successful 10.5 install volume, via CCC and placing it on a FW 800 drive.
Next I will make a sparse image of my good and current 10.4 RAID for backup
Then Recreate the RAID via 10.5 DVD boot
Then put G5 in target disk mode
Use my MBP and CCC to copy the sparse image of the good 10.5 on the FW 800 over the newly created RAID set.
That is the plan anyway...
I know many people are looking to their cd/dvd drives as the issue. But if that were the issue, then install from a FW Drive would work... and ti does not... in fact it files the exact same way...
Therefore, we are looking to an IO issue. Possibly a bus or channel lane thingy thing issue... but IO, not HD.
And by the way, it looks like having multiple drives present during the install can be an issue...
Good luck.

Well, I certainly hope the posts have helped... I get a great deal of help here in the forums and it is good to be able to provide some back...
To be clear, I obviously do not think the RAM is bad. Also, I think my DVD reader is just fine since once I removed the RAM, it was from that DVD reader I installed Leopard. I also do not think Leopard is "broken" other than I think the installer has some refinement issues.
By digging through the posts it seems, to me anyway, that what is causing these issues is a "Tolerance" issue. I do not mean this too technically but think of it this way...
What if the applications Apple is leveraging for the install process perform some function that requires memory to have some spec that is, making up numbers here, 1.341201 - but most RAM only reports to 4 decimal places? Then the RAM is bad to the installer. But not bad elsewhere...
Don't get hung up in the details of my example, just think of the broader idea in the example.
Same thing for DVD players, hard drives, etc. This would fit with Apples tight control on hardware. This is not necessarily a "bad" thing... even if it does cause all these issues.
I am willing to guess that a good number of the people reporting issues here have one of the following environments:
Hardware NOT supplied directly by Apple
Software, not supplied by Apple, running while upgrading
Both
But I an not blaming the user either. You definitly should be able to have those things.
I intend to experiment with my Leopard installs. My next test is to remove the RAM again and put in non-apple hard drives in a RAID 0 configuration. My guess is it will fail. I guess this because one thing I noted in all my dealings with this install process is... Speed = failure. Slowing the machine down lead to the failures taking place at a further point in the instal [ignore actual duration]. And this makes me think my DVD reader cannot IO with my RAM without timing issues... Is that a bad DVD player? Or DVD? Or RAM, or BUS? I think not but only because once it actually gets installed it runs fine, although the Dock and other animations are a bit jerky - but so am I
So it is tolerances... I guess.

Sdo_aggr_union

I am trying to union 2 line segments and than create a buffer around my new geomerty. I ran both queries alone and they worked but when I combined them together I get an errror. Am I missing the something in my query?
1 SELECT mdsys.sdo_buffer(SELECT sdo_geom.sdo_aggr_union(mdsys.sdoaggrtype(a.geom, 0.5))
2 FROM dime a
3 WHERE a.rcd_nbr IN('46067','46068')) geom,
4 m.diminfo, 10)
5 FROM dime, user_sdo_geom_metadata m
6* WHERE m.TABLE_NAME = 'PARCEL'))
compass>/
SELECT mdsys.sdo_buffer(SELECT sdo_geom.sdo_aggr_union(mdsys.sdoaggrtype(a.geom, 0.5))
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-00936: missing expression

Matt,
I didn't think shapefiles had arcs in them! Even so, perhaps the arcs are in there but are incorrect because of a tolerance issue? Have you run the data through sdo_geom.validate_geometry before trying the query? Use a query like this:
SELECT a.rcd_nbr,
             a.geom,
             sdo_geom.validate_geometry(a.geom,m.diminfo)
FROM user_sdo_geom_metadata m,
            dime a
WHERE ( m.TABLE_NAME = 'PARCEL' and m.column_name = 'GEOM' )
     AND a.rcd_nbr IN ('46067','46068')Then, if you get validate_geometry not returning TRUE paste the geometry objects that fail to this forum for people to look at. Also, what are your sdo_tolerance values in user_sdo_geom_metadata?
Simon

Error in IDoc- 51

Hi,
I am facing an error message in idoc, the accounting doc not cleared
Message is
You may only post documents up to USD 1.00
No batch input data for screen SAPMF05A 0700
Please help.
Thanks
SM

HI SM,
Could you describe the issue, what part of time this accounting doc issue, it seems it is realated to tolerance issue. Please descibe the issue, so that we will able to understand where is the problem.

Eraser tool is jagged

I am working on smoothing the edges of a graphic. I know how to pick my eraser tool, the hardness, opacity, etc. So.....
I'm cleaning up this graphic nicely and I save the file. I open it up later and the edges that I have already smoothed are all jagged now. Also, as I continue to erase, the tool is still jagged. It is a brush tool at 100% opacity and hardness, etc. It is the same tool and setting that was working beautifully before I saved the project.
I have an image of the jagged (pixelated) graphic attached (I hope the jaggedness is visible in pic).... Remember, it wasn't jagged when I was working on it before.
What do you think happened?
Thank you!

Ok I haveinvestigated this and the OP is correct and Doug is correct as well…WHAT?
Yes indeed they are both correct.
You can call it a bug and I think you would be correct and you can also say it is not a bug and probably be correct as well.
This is the thing this will occur as the OP describes but it depends on the size of the dash or should i say the expanded object.
Exactly at what size (length) this problem disappears I have not been able to determine but if you made the dash like 8 points you would surely be fine.
Make it less than a point and you definitely have a problem. The eraser tool can only be 1 point minimum and that might be the problem.
Draw ay small shape less than a point in length and use the eraser tool and you will see what I mean.
So this is not dash line specific but a tolerance limit be it expected or by design or a bug is probably how you choose to look at it.
So what does this effect have on the workings or Illustrator to Adobe this was probably acceptable and if no one complains about it or describes it in itss true sense Adobe will either not be able to reproduce it or will they correct it.
I don't see it as a bug as there are ways to accomplish and effect the same result in Illustrator I see it as a feature request to be able to effect smaller tolerance either with a new tool or with improvements to the current tool(s). In the case of a dash line it might be good o be able have an eraser tool that erased the path as an effect so that the dash did not reflow and the path seemed to be shortened. That would be a very handy tool since you would not need to expand the stroke and would have control over the length and size of the path.
But this type of eraser effect is probably not possible.
So if the Op and Scott see this as a bug I think they should mention the fact that his is a tolerance issue that needs to be addressed and they should come up with a good reason or two why it should be changed.
I am going to get breakfast.

Replacement iBook G3 battery not recognised - non Apple brand

Hi World
Try this conundrum for size...
I bought 'new' (non-Apple) battery on Ebay and my iBook does not appear to recognise it. i.e amber charge light does not illuminate - it stays green. I've done a PMU reset, Battery Rest 2.0, Restarted the iBook etc etc - nothing seems to work. The only reason I want a new battery is to avoid resetting the date every time I restart the iBook - I never travel with it and it's always powered from the mains electricity.
For information - the original (dead) Apple battery happily illuminates amber - but obviously can not store a charge.
I have also received a replacement for the intial new battery and it is still showing the same response i.e. no amber glow
Is there a printed circuit in these batteries that is needed to say 'hello' in an exact way and therefore allow charging to occur? If so, if I were to extract the new cells from my new battery and somehow wire them into the old Apple case, would that work? (I have read about spot soldering and it sounds a bit daunting)
Any answers gratefully appreciated
Any answers

FIRST: You wrote "Is there a printed circuit in these batteries that is needed to say 'hello' in an exact way and therefore allow charging to occur? If so, if I were to extract the new cells from my new battery and somehow wire them into the old Apple case, would that work? (I have read about spot soldering and it sounds a bit daunting)"
I think these batteries do contain some electronic circuitry, but I don't know whether that's the source of your problem (read on). In any case, with many years of technical work under my belt, I would be reluctant to attempt the cell transfer you suggest -- batteries have a way of being more dangerous than people think, as there's a fair amount of energy stored there.
But, on to your problem. You might nott want to say, but I'd be interested in the source of these batteries, as I'm in the middle of a "new" battery experience that has some similarities:
For reasons I won't go into, I have four iBooks in my possession -- and all had batteries in various states of decrepitude (some wouldn't take a charge at all, some would take different amounts of charge at different times, all were essentially useless). BUT ALL WERE RECOGNIZED BY THE COMPUTER.
So I purchased, on-line, two new batteries and they were delivered quickly. BOTH of them worked immediately and perfectly in TWO of the four computers, but went totally unrecognized in the other two computers. After considering the possibilities, I concluded that the problem might well be a very small misalignment of the connectors in the computers that didn't work with the connectors on the new batteries. (I'm talking about the plastic-shrouded 6-pin connectors, one in the computer and one on the battery, that engage when you install the battery). There is precedence for this kind of issue, as I have seen reports on the web of people resorting to cardboard shims to improve the engagement of the connectors. But, in my case, there simply is not room for any such shims, and nudging the battery one way or the other (a tiny distance) didn't make them work.
I had unrelated internal work to do on one of the two computers that didn't recognize the batteries.
While I had it apart, I replaced the battery charger board, which incorporates one of the mating connectors. (+I didn't suspect the electronics of that board, rather the physical positioning of the board as secured in the computer case, or of the connector on the board+.) The result was that this computer now worked with one of the new batteries but continued not recognizing the other new battery.
What this comes down to, I think, is a physical tolerance issue -- probably with the lateral positioning of the connectors, either in the computer, or on the battery, or a combination of both. It could also have to do with the connector condition. The connector in the computer is obviously (usually) as old as the computer itself; the connector on the battery is . . . who knows? Although the battery is said to be new, the battery manufacturers may somehow make use of old battery cases (and connectors). Most if not all connectors rely on some spring tension in the contacts to keep the contacts mated, and the contacts can also be affected by corrosion -- and deterioration of older connectors is simply a real possibility.
Would be really interested in what approach you take and the results. Please post back.
There seem to be a lot of sources for these batteries on-line, but it's possible they all come from a small number of outfits (or even just one outfit) that builds (or rebuilds) them. If, ultimately, all the battery cases (with the connector) come from just one source, then the problem might be likely to show up no matter what your source (or the name on the battery, etc.) If I'm correct on this, then it's going the be a gamble as to whether a battery purchased from another source will solve the problem.
But, what choice is there? I think your best bet might be to return that second battery and then buy another one from . . . ? (somebody different). Or maybe someone who follows this forum can name a recent supplier with which there has been no problem whatsoever.
Message was edited by: osimp

Lockbox issue - Payments out of tolerance should go "on account"

In FLB2, when I process customer payment advices that are out of tolerance for the invoice they are paying, the doocument is cleared, a residual item is created and the payment advice is applied. Is there a way to have the payment advice be put on account instead? (my users want to have specific information in the resiudal item record so want to manually create it during post-processing in FLB1).

Did you find the solution for this Marilyn?
I am having the same issue where if the program finds the invoice, regardless of the amount, it post and clear leaving the difference on the account.
Odd thing is it wasn't doing this a month ago? We have had a lof ot configuration changes and I am going through those but we can't understand what would impact this?
Can you share? Was your issue resolved?
Thanks!

Tolerance issue - Lockbox

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for