Validation Rule to prevent duplicate posting of invoices

Hi All,
I am proposing to use the Reference field as the field for my Invoice Number in my FB60 and FB70 postings. I need to set up a validation rule to ensure that previously posted invoices are prevented from being reposted (i.e. prevent invoice posting duplication). This field is BKPF-XBLNR.
Can someone please help me to define the validation rule to use in preventing this from happening.
Thank you for your help.
Regards,
Yomi

HI
Double invoice check works as below in standard SAP--
System will check the below fields-
1.Invoice date
2.Amount
3.Reference
If all three above are identical it will throw an error message if masterdata of a vendor is ticked for double invoice check. If any one of the above will mismatch it will not give error message.
If you wish to check as per reference field only then you need to use Validation.
But you cannot write a simle logic in check , you need to use user exit.Where ABAPER has to write code for this.
Write prerequisite as per your requirement , like company code and transaction code.
then in check use user exit. Which user exit is to be used , that you can ask your ABAPER also and you can try the exit suggested in above answers also.
Cheers
Mukta

Similar Messages

Preventing duplicate post

Does anyone have a suggestion regarding how to prevent duplicate posts with JSF?
As an example, I have one form that allows users to carry out CRUD operations on the data that is being displayed. All successfully processed requests result in a post back to this same page.
I really want to avoid the problems that could occur if a delete or new request gets reposted by an impatient user.
Any suggestions are welcome. I should also note that for scalability reasons, I prefer to avoid solutions which require storing token, etc. in the session. I will settle for such a strategy in the absence of a better solution.

Thanks to all who responded. Just a couple follow-up questions and comments.
1. Can not use Shale. I'm in a heavily restricted corporate environment that limits me to IBM's (poor) implementation of JSF 1.0.
2. Would rather not address the problem soley through the use of JavaScript because users can always disable JavaScript.
3. Redirecting back to the page instead of forwarding back is not practical for three reasons. One, it will require my backing bean to make calls down into my application to retrieve data that would already have been readily available if I were forwarding, and I'm not comfortable with that performance decrease. Two, redirecting back to the form makes displaying of validation errors difficult. Three, redirecting to the page would successfully handle the circumstance where a user hits refresh, but doesn't handle the case of an impatient user who clicks the submit button twice while waiting for a response.
If anyone can propose a solution that works within these constraints, let me know.
Thanks again for those who are contributing.

Duplicate Posts

Occasionally, we see forum users posting duplicate posts across various sub-categories within a category. While not always helpful, this occasionally helps garner inputs from users who would not frequent the original category where the user has already posted his query once. In this sense, I believe that this practice may not always deserve to be frowned upon as the intention may be to have inputs from other set of members.
Having said that, may I suggest an enhancement to the forum (if the underlying technology permits) that would allow a user to swap the sub-category under which his query is posted ? This would allow a user to attempt "moving" his/her post between sub-categories preventing duplicate posts while at the same time providing an option to focus the query to different set of users ?
Would like to have the views of peers and moderators here.
Regards,
Rakesh

This becomes impractical quickly.
What if you can't/don't want to get to the other forum? (Consider that there are sites that are shunned, to the point where people don't want links to raise their google standing. Others are obscure.)
What if you are responding to something before they link to the other forum? The Ranch post was explicit about a delay.
What if some forums don't allow editing?
What about people who blast doc questions to every forum they can or can't spell?
What if some fora have different etiquette? (I remember one day I posted in similar style different questions, one on usenet and one on C$erve. One group flamed me for too little info, the other for too long of a post. Similar things have happened between usenet, lists and fora. And top versus bottom posting...)
Eventually someone says something like "well, use good judgment and post smart questions" which is useless on this topic. The root cause intra-site is arbitrary classifications, and cross-site the capriciousness of the rules.
We shouldn't expect questioners to put in more time than volunteers, there is quite of bit of management implicit in cross-indexing crossposting. People will just get cross :P

Preventing Duplicate User LogIN

How to prevent Duplicate User Login ? The First User's Session has to be killed.
How to do this ?

How to prevent duplicate posts?
http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=632857&tstart=0

Restricting TDS based on validation rules for vendor invoice posting

I have two Tax Types assigned in the vendor master. If at the time of invoicing user do not delete the unwanted tax types, system posts both the amounts related to both the tax types.
User has to necessarily delete one tax type which is not required and then proceed with simulating the vendor invoice.
Can this be controlled thru validation rules ? Even if the user forgets to delete the unwanted tax type while passing vendor invoice, validation rule must throw an error asking to delete the unwanted tax types before simulating the vendor invoice.
Please help how to build such validation rule with detailed procedure.
Thanks
Ravi

Hi Ravi,
I hope you have selected both withholding tax type and code at the vendor master level itself.
It is generally advisable to select withholding tax type at vendor master level and leave the field withholding tax code to be in display mode. Hence during vendor master creation, they can only select withholding tax type and not the withholding tax code. Ensure liable to tax should be ticked against all withholding tax types.
During invoice entry creation either in FB60 or in MIRO, they can select the withholding tax code next to the withholding tax type and simulate and post.
In your case, you cannot delete the withholding tax types at invoice entry level. Ensure to delete the unwanted withholding tax type from your vendor master itself, I mean delete only the withholding tax codes pertaining to that unwanted withholding tax type.
Hope this helps. Assign points if useful
Regards,
Dwarak.

Prevention of posting invoices twice

Hi All
I need suggestions and solutions on the below
scenario, where client wants to have the check
for Duplicate Vendor invoice posting with below
conditions
1.If only reference number and amt are matching.
2.Also a warning must appear when same vendor,
same document date and same amount appears
Pls let me know what are the possibilities are there for this issue...
Points will be provided
Regards
AA

Hi AA,
All that you need to do is that, goto document type in TCode OBA7 and for the document type KR and for all other documents which are vendor related, you need to flag the "Reference Number" Checkbox.
In the reference field, the client generally enters the physical invoice number of the vendor invoice.
Once an invoice is posted say with refernce number ZA1 and saved, the system automatically throws an error message when the client tries to post another invoice with the same reference number to the same vendor once again there by avoiding any duplicate invoices being posted.
Hope this answer helps you. Please assign points if found useful.
Regards,
Sreekanth....

How to restrict user to post in GL a/cs thru validation rule ?

Hi Experts,
I want to restrict an user to post transactions for tds related gl accounts.is that possible through Validation rules.
Actually i created a step and under that i configured prequisite,check and message.
In "prerequisite" Company code = xxxx and user name = fffffff
in "check i configured, all restricted GL accounts
In "message" -
GL account restricted to post by user fffffff
But still the problem is not yet solved as the user is able to post transaction in that GL accounts.
Plz guide.
Sumeya offrin

Hi Neeraj,
Thank you for the response.
Xtely.i have done the same.created an authorization groupp and assigned the group in GL account master data(control data tab) and even the group contains the users who are authorized to post into these GL accounts.
But sorry,the problem not yet solved.
Anyother solution?
waiting for the another response.
With Regards,
Sumeya offrin
Edited by: sumeya offrin on Nov 26, 2008 1:47 PM

STOP POSTING TO PROFIT CENTER BY VALIDATION RULE

Dear all gurus, I am being asked by my user how to stop posting into a profit center.After searching the forum, i found an answer :"For blocking the posting to profit center, use validation rule with a check that (Profit Center=12345)->FALSE"
I do not know how it works. Can any gurus please share with me step by step in details?
Please help i am really need this solution as soon as possible and many thanks in advance for the help rendered.
Best regards,
Yew

Hello,
You need to create the validation in GGB0
You will have pre-requisite, check and message.
Then assign the validation rule in OB28.
Regards,
Ravi

Page level validation to prevent duplicate data entry into the database

Hello,
Can anyone please help me out with this issue.
I have a form with two items based on a table. I already have an item level validation to check for null. Now I would like to create a page level validation to check that duplicate data are not entered into the database. I would like to check the database when the user clicks on ‘Create’ button to ensure they are not inserting duplicate record. If data already exist, then show the error message and redirect them to another page. I am using apex 3.2
Thanks

Hi,
Have you tried writing a PLSQL function to check this?
I haven't tested this specifically, but something like this should work:
1) Create a Page Level Validation
2) Choose PLSQL for the method
3) Choose Function Returning Boolean for the Type
For the validation code, you could do something like this:
DECLARE
    v_cnt number;
BEGIN
    select count(*)
    into v_cnt
    from
    your_table
    where
    col1 = :P1_field1 AND
    col2 = :P2_field2;
    if v_cnt > 0 then return false;
    else return true;
    end if;
END;If the query returns false, then your error message will be displayed.
Not sure how you would go about redirecting after this page though. Maybe just allow the user to try again with another value (in case they made a mistake) or just press a 'cancel' button to finish trying to create a new record.
Amanda.

MIRO creates a duplicate document itself during posting an invoice

Hi all,
have you ever experienced that SAP created a financial posting by itself during posting of invoice? I've found out that on certain circumstances its possible. In AP process when posting an invoice(S1 entry type) in Miro AP click on "Save-post button. They should be routed to their "inbox" however it happens that they are routed to first Miro screen. This is the moment when we know the O1entry type(entry posted outside workflow) is created by the system. Is it possible to solve it here? Or should I be more specific?
Thanks a lot for help.
regards
Jakub

Hi
You can use BADI AC_DOC_POST.. Pardon me, i dont remember the name exactly.. You can search the badis in SE18 based on this name
Ask your abaper to write the code so that when the COMMIT happens, it also updates the Z table
Other Options: BTE 1120
br, Ajay M

Cross Validation Rules

I accidentally defined a cross validation rule (CVR) wrongly. My intention was to ensure that cost centre values other than 999 couldnt be combined with balance sheet accounts.
It appears to work initially, except that it prevents me from posting to any non-balance sheet accounts codes, because in the journal entry window the only cost centre segment value that I see is 999, and in the account code segment, the only values that I see are balance sheet account codes.
I need to see other cost centre values and account code values so as to post to P&L account codes, but they are not showing in the journal entry window. I have tried many times to disable the CVR but it hasnt help. I tried to change the CVR and saved it but it hasnt help either.
Can someone let me know how to remove this annoying cross validation rule altogether so that I will be back to where I started?

hi colin,
obviously it is not the CVR problem, coz CVRs will not effect the LOVs. check the security for the responsibility you are using.
thanks,

Validation Rule on Payment block

Hi All,
Need your expert advice on below scenario
Specific users are allow to remove payment block of Document posted of specific vendors, can you please provide what logic I use in GGB0 Validation rule.
Logic used by me is under prerequisit:
Company Code = '1100' AND Vendor = 'vendor Number' AND User Name <> 'User ID'
under Check:
Pmnt Block <> 'B'
it is restricted user from editing payment block of posted document.

Hi Revan,
Your logic will work. It will have side effects - but if you take another approach, there will be others (perhaps more serious ones). So, I would suggest going ahead with it and see where it needs to be adjsuted.
Let's list some of the drawbacks, so that you can address them if needed:
* For example, no other user will be able to post or change anything on such a vendor item (not even Text, Assignment etc.) if the payment block is not set. I believe you have to live with it.
* No other user will be able to reverse (trans. FB08 etc.) or unclear (trans. FBRA) such items if they are not blocked against payment. Blocking FBRA is perhaps OK, but I would strongly recommend excluding trans. FB08 from the prerequisites - it is usually a good practice to allow "everything" on reversal, so that any error can be corrected this way.
* If the item is blocked with another indicator (e.g., "R" from logistics invoice verification) then the other users will not be able to do anything with it, either. Do you want the block type to be so specific? If not, then you may consider a blank block in the "check". But this is rather a detail.
Lakshmi also had a good idea to include all such users (and perhaps vendors) in sets (with trans. GS01 / GS02) to make it more flexible to change them as employees move or new vendors become critical. This could however open a "back door" if the access to this set (these sets) is not properly controlled.
I was also thinking about a different approach - to do it through authorization roles and profiles, but it would have much more drawbacks (e.g. with object Accounting Document: Account Authorization for Vendors (F_BKPF_BEK) - only the priviledged group would be able to perform specific actions on such vendor items, whether or not they would be blocked - which would be harsher than you design). So, you are trying the right approach, but it may just be needed to finetune it a little (put some more prerequisites, such as "exclude FB08"). You do it the right way, I believe.
Good luck!

How to Prevent duplicates on Combination of Lookup columns in sharepoint 2010 using infopath 2010 form.

Hi All,
I have list with some Lookup columns like City, Pin, and Text Column Name. All these are required columns.
Now I want to prevent duplicates while submitting InfoPath form if a Combination of City,Pin & Name. (like a Composite primary in Database is used.)
Can some one help me on how to achieve this using InfoPath 2010 Rules, writing rule in Xpath.
Thanks in Advance.

1. Add a secondary data connection to the list where the form will be submitted.
2. Prior to submit via rules, set the query fields in the above connection: City, Pin & Name with values entered in the form. Query the data source and check if the result has values.
3. Show error messages accordingly if exists else continue with Submit.
This post is my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinion or view of Slalom.

User exits to avoid posting of invoices

Hi,
in our company (mm/fi) incoming invoices are parked using a dummy account. Disallow the booking to the dummy account the account master data isn't a valid option.
Therefore I need to find out which user exits are useful to prevent posting the invoices. Please give me an advice with the concrete user-exit, BTE. I found a lot of documents where a list of user exists was provided. I have seen them already but don't know which one is the right one and how to implement it.
EXIT_SAPLMRMC_002 looked good for the mm-invoices but I think that this is false.
Regards, Vanessa

Hi Max,
thanks for your reply. I thought the same but I am facing problems with the validation. Maybe I am doing something wrong.
I am using the OB28 and maintain the validation.
ZFIV001 / FI / 2
The requrirement is: BSEG_HKONT = '123456'. The check is the user exit U100 where I am using a dirty assignment to check if the posting button was used:
FIELD-SYMBOLS <act>.
assign ('(SAPMF05A)OK-CODE') TO <act>.
if <act> EQ 'BU'.
b_result = b_false.
ELSE.
b_result = b_true.
ENDIF.
But for MM-invoices it seems as if the user exit is never used.
Regards, Vanessa

Validation rule in Funds management.

Dear Friends,
We use commitment items to monitor the budgets with overall budget for budget type Payment budget
In some cases, users are posting some adjustment entries to transfer the consumed budget values from one commitment item to another.
Ex:
Original Entry: Expenses incurred 1000, So entry booked with PK40, 123456 (expense GL), amt 1000, and commitment item ABC.
So at a later stage they came to know that they have used a wrong commitment item for the above document.(Correct CI would have been DEF)
So they are posting an adjustment entry like
PK40 GL123456 amt 1000 CI DEF
PK50 GL123456 amt 1000 CI ABC
So when i check the funds management doc for the above doc, FM uses VALUE TYPE 66 to do the transfer postings to commitment items, since these documents are giving wrong impact on my CI overall balances report FMRP_RFFMTO31X - Overall Budget -> Totals Records .
For the debit commitment item, it is not adding that amount in invoice column of above report, but it is comsuming the budget. So there is a mismatch in my total record for the debited commitment item.
For the credti commitment item, it is not deducting that amount in invoice column of above report, but it is increasing the budget. So there is a mismatch in my total record for the credited commitment item.
(Ex: Total budget-invoices-open items = Available budget) This is not happening at all
So i tried to restrict these kind of postings with a validation in FM like
Prerequisite: BPJA_VALID-FIKRS = 'AE69' (AE69 is my FM area)
Check: BPJA_VALID-WRTTP < > '66'
Message: Error message.
And activated the same in SPRO->PSM->FMG->Budgeting and Avl Control (Former Budgeting)->Budgeting (Former Budgeting)->Validation rules->Activate Funds Management Validation----
But still i am able to post those kind of documents.
Is there any other workaround for this restriction or can only be restricted by a validation?
Please corret me if i am wrong in validation condition expressions.
Thanks,
Srinu

Hi,
Actually we are using a Z program, which is copied from standard program as said earlier.
In the z program, we made some conditions to treat value type 66 also as like 54.
Now we are getting our report as expected.
Thanks,
Srinu...

Validation Rule to prevent duplicate posting of invoices

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for