Validation Rules problems

Hello.
I've got some strange results for Validation Rules (business rules):
1. When i ran this rule it didn't sum up account that was defined via dimension logic formula. It summed up base member accounts and parents account but didn't sum up accounts defined via dimension logic formula. Had anyone the same problem? Is it ok or not?
2. When the number of account_r or account_l are different i receive error when validating rules: "Record ( Seq = 4 ): Field ACCOUNT_R value cannot be blank " and "Record ( Seq = 4 ): Field SUBTABLES_R value cannot be blank". Is it ok or not? As far as i know it works in BPC for MS.
Please, help to clarify what is right and wrong.

There are already some threads on this topic.
Unfortunately, they don't give solutions - not yet ;)
Custom Method Validator
addVetoableChangeListener for attribute doesn't seem to get fired
HTH,
Adrian

Similar Messages

Validation rules problem

Hi,
I am trying to create some validation rules, the rules works just fine for me. I am struggling with the "Other Source Dimensions Members" column in the Validation rules definition. As I understand this column is that I can filter out specific data that should be used in this validation. In my case I want to filter out specific entities.
To select those entities I would like to either use a property from my entity dimension or where entity is not equal to a specified value...
What I have tried:
ENTITY.DIMLIST_PPC<>""
ENTITY.DIMLIST_PPC="X"
[ENTITY].properties("DIMLIST_PPC")="X"
I can't get any of above to work the only thing I can get to work is to use for example:
ENTITY=ABC123
it would also work for me to use
ENTITY<>XYZ123 but I can't get that to work either.
Would really appreciate any input/ideas on this.
I'm on BPC 10 MS SP15.
Brgds
Mattias

Hi Mattias,
sorry to confirm you that "Other Source Dimensions Members" field does not support properties also in 7.5 version.
So if you are not able to filter these entities using another dimension (e.g. ACCTDetail) (all dims condition separate by a comma) I think you have to use some script.
Regards
Roberto

Validation Business Rule Problem

Hi Community
I´m working with SAP BPC 7.0 NW SP09 Consolidation, the problem I have is when I execute the validation package, the result of the Validation Rule because the business rule don´t respect the number sign of the value calculated.
For example I try to confirm this formula ASSETS = LIABILITIES + EQUITY
ASSETS      AST   1000
LIABILITIES LEQ     800
EQUITY        LEQ     400
RESULT                  -200
BUSINESS RULE      200
I was investigating all the posible combinations of dimensions, and I found it could be possible that this error occurs when (Liabilities + Equity) > Asset.
Rule
VAL01     ASSETS=LIABILITIES
Rule Details
Validation Account     Account 1     Flow 1     Sign 1     Account 2     Flow 2     Sign 2     REMARK
VAL01     ASSETS     F_CLO     1     LIABILITIES     F_CLO     1
ASSETS and LIABILITIES are configures as part of dimlist property, where Liabilities have all the equity accounts too.
Hope anyone help me with this problem
Thanks in advance

Hello Ruben
If Account: VAL01 is 'AST' account than Validation Business Rule will give 200 as the result.For 'LEQ' result will be -200.
I think the business rule is working as expected.
Hope this help.
Regards
Venkatesh KPS

Update rule problem - validation of "sales/cost w/ tax" keyfigure

BW Gurus,
    Hi to all, i have this update rule problem at "sales/cost w/tax" keyfigure here is the senario.
    Our Goverment mandatory implemented an additional 2% tax from the original 10%, this will affect our report on sales, and also the BW "sales/cost w/ tax" key figure.
    My question is How can I validated the effectivity of the new tax? i have tax 10% from previous sales and 12% on the current sales. What "date field" can I use to validated this. I am using /BIC/CS2LIS_13_VDITM stucture to get the data i need.
Thanks in Advance
Joven

Hi,
Till to day how are extracting the data for tax(original 10%) is it available directly in 2LIS_13_VDITM ?
Usually all taxes( condition types) can be extracted by the data source 2LIS_13_VDKON.Discuss with SD team, they may give the condition type used for different taxes.
With rgds,
Anil Kumar sharma .P

FI Validation rule error message problem at line item level

Hello all.
I have created a step within an FI Validation rule (OB28) at the document line item level. I have set the message to "E" for an error. I have generated the validations. When I test my step, the error is triggered, but triggered as an Information popup - warning and does not give me a hard stop. Does anyone have an idea why this may happen? I need this to be a hard stop but not a cancellation of the document entry. I am using FV60 to enter my document.
Thanks for help.
mvp0821

OSS note # 863267 explains answer. Cannot create "error" message on ENJOY transactions - FV60 is included in this list. "E" works on classic transactions.
Thanks for thinking about this.

How to create a validation rule in SAP BODS Job

Hi Experts
I have created a BODS Job and in that job i have to create a validation rule as if the cust_id is null the loading must stop.
I dont have idea where i have to define this validation rule in the Job and how to stop the load job if the validation rule file.
My Job was defined like below image
Please guide me where i have to define the validation rule and how to stop the load job.
Thanks in advance
PrasannaKumar

Hi samatha b
Thanks for your response. I have done as you said and now i can rise the exception.
I have another requirement as per the validation transformation the data will load into Pass table and Fail table after job execution. If any data entered into fail table i have delete the data loaded into Pass table.
Here i am facing problem as my target tables are MySQL tables and when i am writing scripts i wrote the script as
sql('database','delete from <tablename>');
but as it is an SQL Query execution it is rising exception for the query.
How can i delete the data loaded into MySQL Target table using scripts.
Please guide me for this error also
Thanks in Advance
PrasannaKumar

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,

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

FI Validation Rules on Travel

Hi experts.
I am working in a project where Travel and Fi are in different systems. I am using IDocs ACC_EMPLOYEE_PAY02, ACC_EMPLOYEE_EXP02 and ACC_EMPLOYEE_REC02 to send Posting to FI.
The distribution model has the BAPIs needed for checking and posting and the IDocs are transported to FI. The BAPIs are the following:
1. BAPI Method AcctngEmplyeeExpnses.Check;
2. BAPI Method AcctngEmplyeeExpnses.Post;
3. BAPI Method AcctngEmplyeeRcvbles.Check;
4. BAPI Method AcctngEmplyeeRcvbles.Post;
5. BAPI Method AcctngEmplyeePaybles.Check;
6. BAPI Method AcctngEmplyeePaybles.Post.
The problem is that FI has validation rules (made in OB28) and the BADIs are not checking before posting. The IDoc goes to the FI system and gives an error there.
Do you know how to solve this problem? Should I call the BAPI from the user-exits in TRIP_POST_FI?
Thank you for your help.
I will reward helpfull answers.
Best regards.
Marco Duarte

Pre-requisites:-
SYST-TCODE = 'FB60' OR SYST-TCODE = 'FB50' OR
SYST-TCODE = 'FB70' OR SYST-TCODE = 'MIRO'
Check:-
( BSEG-KOSTL NE ' ' OR BSEG-KOSTL NE '0' )
AND
( BSEG-AUFNR NE ' ' OR BSEG-AUFNR NE '0' )
Message:-
As you need
While copy paste the above into system, please put not equal to sign instead of NE. Not able to enter in this post as some problem in typing in this post.
Regards,
Gaurav

FI Validation Rules on Travel Documents

FI Validation Rules on Travel
Posted: Jan 3, 2008 11:51 PM Edit E-mail this message Reply
Hi experts.
I am working in a project where Travel and Fi are in different systems. I am using IDocs ACC_EMPLOYEE_PAY02, ACC_EMPLOYEE_EXP02 and ACC_EMPLOYEE_REC02 to send Posting to FI.
The distribution model has the BAPIs needed for checking and posting and the IDocs are transported to FI. The BAPIs are the following:
1. BAPI Method AcctngEmplyeeExpnses.Check;
2. BAPI Method AcctngEmplyeeExpnses.Post;
3. BAPI Method AcctngEmplyeeRcvbles.Check;
4. BAPI Method AcctngEmplyeeRcvbles.Post;
5. BAPI Method AcctngEmplyeePaybles.Check;
6. BAPI Method AcctngEmplyeePaybles.Post.
The problem is that FI has validation rules (made in OB28) and the BADIs are not checking before posting. The IDoc goes to the FI system and gives an error there.
Do you know how to solve this problem? Should I call the BAPI from the user-exits in TRIP_POST_FI?
Thank you for your help.
I will reward helpfull answers.
Best regards.
Marco Duarte

read this from http://help.sap.com/erp2005_ehp_04/helpdata/En/82/5c2f38e80d2805e10000009b38f889/frameset.htm
> Substitution and validation are not supported in document parking or when changing a parked document. Only when you post a parked document is the substitution or validation made.
hope taht helps
Andreas
Please do not use code tags to format text - it doesn't work
Edited by: Rob Burbank on Jul 30, 2010 9:21 AM

How to apply validation rule for View Object (VO) attributes?

How to add Validation Rules to VO attributes, just like EO Business Rules?
I got 2 problem with that:
1. VO can join multiple tables, and the attribute's validation rules may reference to the fields from multiple entities.
2. Since the EO Validation Rules only execute before the data actually write to entity (Commit operation). But user may need to input data from multiple pages with only 1 commit.
I am using JDeveloper 11g with ADF BC.
Regards,
Samson Fu

Just something to point out, the EO validation doesn't fire on a commit (if you mean commit as in the database/AppModule commit). You can also access VO information from the EO validation rules by using view accessors.
Regards
Grant

Business Validations Rule Priority

Hi
We have a problem with business rules in ADF. we use JDeveloper 10.1.3.3.0.4157
I will try to explain our problem!
We write some "method validations" as "attribute" and "entity" validation in MyEntityImpl.java
At each method validation we must send a query to the database and investigate something which causes the method validation to return true or false.
Assume that we have method validation number 1 to 5.
If validation number 2 returns false, we don't want the validations number 3,4 and 5 to run because it's time consuming
and not necessary. Even if validations 3,4 and 5 execute, we don't want to see error messages Of those validations.
I think that, we must have a priority level for our validation rules, indicating that if a validation with higher priority returns false, other validations that have lower priority don't execute or at least don't raise error message.
I don't see such a mechanism but I think it's so important.
We use a temporary unconvincing solution with using this "getDBTransaction().setBundledExceptionMode(false)" method, but
it only causes don't show next validations message.
Anyone can help us?
regards.

Hi,
thanks Salim for your reply,
hasAttributeException(int) can solve one part of our problem (control to not evaluate entity validation if one of our attribute validations returns false), but how we can control the evaluation of entity validations? for example if we have 3 entity validations and one of them returns false, how we can force other entity validations not run?
thanks

Bringing back an old password validation rule

Good afternoon
On our old 4.6C system, there was a password validation rule that stated the first three characters of the password cannot occur in the same order in the user ID. This rule was removed when we upgraded to ECC 6.0
While the users hated that rule, that rule was a SOX requirement at our company and I would like to have it back. Before I resort to programming user exits, is there a way to reactivate or at least simulate that rule? I cannot use USR40 because not only does it effect all users on the system, it only works on the second logon and not at validation time.
If programming user exits like EXIT_SAPLSUSF_001 is my only option, where can I get the password at logon time? From my understanding, SAP does not store this in a system value or even a global variable or table to prevent the recording of passwords. While this is a valid security reason, it would solve the resurrection of this password role through programming.
Please advise.
Kind Regards
Moggie

Hi Moggie,
> Pending the result of the contract programmer's research, placing a 3 character prefix of each new user ID in table USR40 is looking like the best option, though I do hate to place that kind of check for all user IDS when only one ID really needs that validation rule.
A problem with that will soon arise when you have for example 10000 user ID's and want the users to have the opportunity to use strong pass-phrases (not just pass-words). Additionally, the passwords are now case-sensitive but the user ID is not. A pass-phrase for users such as "The_D0g_&_Cat_r_FAT" would go undetected even if you have any "THERON's" in the system, but why should it not be allowed? It's a good one!
Users will soon notice that only passwords which are very cryptic can be used, and they will start writing them down on Post-It's.
While that is going on... the "real sinners" who dish out weak or the same initial / reset passwords (like "INIT1234") or administrate the users for whom passwords don't change (like "RFC4PROD") will not have any further "idiot-proof" controls as it is only a warning, which is intentional.
> If the passwords are cycled regularly, adhere to profile values in the instance that encourage strict password rules, and are kept private and secure, it is not a compliance issue to the auditors.
There you have it.
Tell them that. Even if they do use the first 3 bname characters as the first 3 CAPS_ON password characters, they won't be able to do it for long anyway if the password rules are appropriate...
Incase you are not aware of it, please also take a look at (and search here and SAP notes for) infos about instance parameter login/password_compliance_to_current_policy (e.g. SAP Note 862989). With appropriate minimum password rules (not overkilled - because the system must still be able to generate compliant wizard-passwords!), you will catch the bigger risks than any one 'BSM?????'s in there somewhere....
Cheers,
Julius

Validation Rules, No data to validate

Hello all,
I'm trying to setup the Business Rule "Validation Rules" in SAP BPC NW 7.0 but I'm getting a message that says NO DATA TO VALIDATE, I have done the configuration steps such:
1. Add to the Entity Dim the correct OWNER.
2.In BPC WEB ADMIN I changed the WorkStatusValidate to "YES".
3. I changed the Work Status Setting at application level, ith the next parameters:
     ENTIDAD---> owner
     TIEMPO---> yes
     CATEGORIA--->yes,   and the other dimensions as NO
4. I Changed The Work Status Setting at appset level too.
I have edited the Validation Rules as follows:
VALIDATIONACCOUNT        REMARK          VALIDATIONOPERANT             VALIDATIONTOLERANCE
      REGLA1                          ACTIVO                          =                                                   0.01
When I click on Save without validate, there are no problems, but it is happenning When I Click on Validate Validation Rules Rule Table. Have you ever seen this error before?
Thanks in advanced!
REgards!

Hi Miguel,
You are comparing work status and the validation rules. However, these 2 are completely different functionalities.
For maintaining validations, please take a look at the below links from help.sap:
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_bpc75_nw/helpdata/en/72/027eddf803405eb131738b655408ce/content.htm
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_bpc75_nw/helpdata/en/d9/7e49e5b686462a9f2a2d38c98b8446/content.htm
For work status, please refer to the below links from help.sap:
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_bpc75_nw/helpdata/en/f8/d51b881cfa4c5992de481ccfa05db3/content.htm
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_bpc75_nw/helpdata/en/75/712b5c7be845cbb1e76cfe78650343/content.htm
Hope this helps.

Validation Rules Wildcards

Good Evening (a really busy one for me :p )
is it possible to use wildcards on validation rules?
Thanks
Francesco

Another question:
why I'm unable to retrieve calculated data on validation rule while I haven't any problem with the other 2 data retrieving modes? I'm sure the required fileds are correctly set up...

Validation Rules problems

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for