Weird behavior in baseline date in MIR4

Dear Expert,
Using MIR4, I try to change the payment terms, the baseline date will automatically changed to system date, which is not following the rules on the payment terms setting.
I have done a debug on this, and this process is executed somewhere in Function
"FI_CHANGE_PAYMENT_CONDITIONS " :
            case t052-zdart.                                "P00K005354
              when 'B'.                                     "P00K005354
                zfbdt = i_bldat.                            "P00K005354
              when 'D'.                                     "P00K005354
                zfbdt = i_budat.                            "P00K005354
              when 'C'.                                     "P00K005354
                zfbdt = sy-datum.                           "P00K005354
                if i_cpudt is initial.                     "Note 199967
                  zfbdt = sy-datum.                         "P00K005354
                else.                                      "Note 199967
                  zfbdt = i_cpudt.                         "Note 199967
                endif.                                     "Note 199967
B is document date.
D is Posting date.
C is document entry date
" " is No Default
Since the invoice have not yet been posted, there is no CPUDT --> the account document date. Therefore , according to the code above, condition C will set the date to system date . But my setting of payment terms is C , document entry date. The date that entered during the creation of this invoice.....
Normallly, --> normal posting, if i do not make any changes in the payment term, with the same conditions, C , i get the correct date, but once i changed the condition to other s, with also condition C, the date set to system date, this isnt correct...
Anyone encounter this before ???
What's the solution ?
Thank you for reading my long story......

Dear,
Can any help to simulate this in your system ? Just want to see if your system will also behave like that ?
Do "Edit/Change" in MIR4 , then change the payment terms (to & from , both of original payment baseline type "Entry Date"), then press enter ....
Does your baseline date changed to current date ?
Thank you ...

Similar Messages

Weird behavior on Baseline date in MIR4

Dear Expert,
Using MIR4, I try to change the payment terms, the baseline date will automatically changed to system date, which is not following the rules on the payment terms setting.
I have done a debug on this, and this process is executed somewhere in Function
"FI_CHANGE_PAYMENT_CONDITIONS " :
case t052-zdart. "P00K005354
when 'B'. "P00K005354
zfbdt = i_bldat. "P00K005354
when 'D'. "P00K005354
zfbdt = i_budat. "P00K005354
when 'C'. "P00K005354
zfbdt = sy-datum. "P00K005354
if i_cpudt is initial. "Note 199967
zfbdt = sy-datum. "P00K005354
else. "Note 199967
zfbdt = i_cpudt. "Note 199967
endif. "Note 199967
B is document date.
D is Posting date.
C is document entry date
" " is No Default
Since the invoice have not yet been posted, there is no CPUDT --> the account document date. Therefore , according to the code above, condition C will set the date to system date . But my setting of payment terms is C , document entry date. The date that entered during the creation of this invoice.....
Normallly, --> normal posting, if i do not make any changes in the payment term, with the same conditions, C , i get the correct date, but once i changed the condition to other s, with also condition C, the date set to system date, this isnt correct...
Anyone encounter this before ???
What's the solution ?
Thank you for reading my long story......

Dear,
Can any help to simulate this in your system ? Just want to see if your system will also behave like that ?
Do "Edit/Change" in MIR4 , then change the payment terms (to & from , both of original payment baseline type "Entry Date"), then press enter ....
Does your baseline date changed to current date ?
Thank you ...

Cellular data....really weird behavior.

Hello,
I've got a problem using my cellular data connection on my iPhone 5 64gb with last updates. I ve got a data plan with 3 ITA and everythings worked good in the last months...then i moved to london for a while (and used a uk sim) and when i come back and try to use my connection with my 3 ITA plan i noticed a really weird behavior.:
Only whatsapp works....and sometimes facebook messanger notification (but no way to send messages)....or maybe a push notification from the email sometimes. But for example safari or chrome never works...imessage doesnt works. a lot of things don't work.
It's really weird because if I try to reset my iphone and erese everything all seems to work ok so I dont think is a carrier problem. If i restore the backup I start to notice the problems.
What can be the cause?
Anyone experienced a problem like this?
Thank you
Ivan

You should have specified in the title that it's about a MacBook Pro.
Does the same thing happen with other Linux distributions, OS X, or Windows? Because you should be trying to determine if it's a hardware problem or a software problem.
Did it start happening recently, as in, after an update? Intel HD 4000? Check /var/log/pacman.log and downgrade the driver to whatever worked before. But if it's a hardware problem (i.e. it happens on OS X, other distributions, etc), then you need to take it in to the shop, if warranty still applies.

Weird behavior in opening Aperture images in Photoshop

I have found a lot of really weird behavior when opening Aperture images in an external editor (in my case, Photoshop, so I'll use PS to refer to it):
1) If the master image is opened in PS, a new version is created when the file is opened, not saved. So quitting PS without saving leaves you with a new version of the file, regardless of whether you actually saved any changes or not.
2) If a version (not the master) is opened in PS, a new version is not created, either on open, or on save. So in other words, changes to that version in PS when saved overwrite that version, and the previous condition of that version is lost (with respect to versioning).
3) If multiple versions of the same image are opened simultaneously in PS, there doesn't seem to be a way to tell the difference between them in PS, except for visually (possibly meta-data, but I haven't checked that, nor would I want to be forced to). The file names of all versions are exactly the same.
I'm looking for feedback from anyone out there who can explain why this isn't completely quacky version control. I've been using version control almost my entire career (as a software programmer) and here's how I have seen almost invariably version control work:
1) New versions of files are always created upon commit, i.e. saving of the file, not on opening a file. (Do not confuse this with working copies, think about what is present in the repository).
2) Opening / editing any file version is never destructive. Any change to that file version that is saved (committed) results in a new version, not an overwrite to the same version.
Aperture's interface basically has combined what traditional version management has represented separately, that being the client and repository views of a project. They are showing all versions of a file simultaneously. This is fine, but I'm really not liking the fact that some changes create new versions, other changes overwrite versions, and one case, merely opening the file creates a new version, whether there are any changes saved or not. In addition, when working with multiple versions in the editor, the file name and/or interface doesn't give any indication of what version you are working with. Easy to say that's the fault of the external editor, but I disagree -- all external editors are going to work with filenames, so Aperture should produce a unique namespace for any file version so that any external tool will be able to distinguish (visually) one file from another.
Is this completely wacky version management, or is it just me?
Brad
Powerbook G4-1.33GHz-17" / Powermac G4-1.4GHz Mac OS X (10.4.2) PB: 1GB RAM, Radeon 9600-64MB / PM: 1.25GB RAM, Radeon 9000Pro-128MB

Hi Bradley,
Due to the way I personally use Photoshop, I want Aperture to behave as it does.
That's because, with Photoshop, I use layers extensively. Any edits I do (levels, curves, saturation, sharpening) I do on layers. I can delete the layers at any time (or select to show or hide them). Because of this, I actually WANT Aperture to behave the way it does. Once I've done a bunch of edits in Photoshop, if I select again to edit that file in the external editor, I want to work on that specific file (to add another layer, or change one). I don't want another duplicate. I tinkered with this over the weekend, and it worked very nicely for me.
Perhaps you work differently from within Photoshop? Do you ever use layers? If I were to have a bunch of Photoshop "versions," each with 5 layers, I'd have like 5 GB of "versions" for my original 8 MB RAW file, due to the size of PSD files. Yuck

Baseline Date Change

Hi Experts,
While doing MIRO, , the baseline date will be default as document date based on Payment Terms.
But in my case, both invoice date and base line date is different. I assure that baseline date will set as default invoice date and it was changed while doing MIRO.
But Client wants to confirm whether the entries (Baseline date) were changed or not.
Any pointers to find the changes occured in the Baseline date.
by
Prabhu

Dear,
There is one more solution :
Go to tcode MIR4..
Enter the document and year.click on ENTER.
Click on "GO TO" in Menu bar.....Click on Display change document.
Here also you can get the changes which have occured in MIRO document.
regards
Utsav

Invoice: Baseline date on the payment terms.

Dear Experts,
I am having a problem where trying to change the term of payment of an invoice before a posting, the account doesnt set the baseline date correctly.
This issue occurs for baseline date type 'Entry Date' .
After whichever interaction in MIR4 , 'Enter' or 'Save', the baseline date will:
1. set to the date as in the existing entry if there is no change .
2. set to the system date if there is a change in the payment terms,
where the '2nd' is not correct because the payment term changed stated that the baseline date should be 'Entry Date'.
The above mentioned logic is inside the function module
'FI_CHANGE_PAYMENT_CONDITIONS'
Codes bellow shows the scenario mentioned in '1.' no changes
Wenn keine Änderung, dann Export versorgen und Tschüss-----
e_zterm = i_newzterm.
zterm = i_newzterm.
e_zfbdt = i_newzfbdt. <----
set to the existing entry
zfbdt = i_newzfbdt.
e_sklin = i_newsklin.
sklin = i_newsklin.
check not status is initial.
Codes bellow shows the scenario mentioned in '2.'terms change, and baseline date type 'C'
T052 contains first entry for payment term key entered "P00K005354
case t052-zdart. "P00K005354
when 'C'. "P00K005354
zfbdt = sy-datum. "P00K005354
if i_cpudt is initial. "Note 199967
zfbdt = sy-datum. "P00K005354 <------ set to current date
else. "Note 199967
zfbdt = i_cpudt. "Note 199967
endif. "Note 199967
Is this a program logic error or is it the way it should be ?
Any one encounter the similar problem ? or should there be OSS notes to apply ?
Thank you .....

.

Baseline Date after a change in Terms

Dear Experts,
I am having a problem where trying to change the term of payment of an invoice before a posting, the account doesnt set the baseline date correctly.
This issue occurs for baseline date type 'Entry Date' .
After whichever interaction in MIR4 , 'Enter' or 'Save', the baseline date will:
1. set to the date as in the existing entry if there is no change .
2. set to the system date if there is a change in the payment terms,
where the '2nd' is not correct because the payment term changed stated that the baseline date should be 'Entry Date'.
The above mentioned logic is inside the function module
'FI_CHANGE_PAYMENT_CONDITIONS'
Codes bellow shows the scenario mentioned in '1.' no changes
Wenn keine Änderung, dann Export versorgen und Tschüss-----
e_zterm = i_newzterm.
zterm = i_newzterm.
e_zfbdt = i_newzfbdt.    <----
set to the existing entry
zfbdt = i_newzfbdt.
e_sklin = i_newsklin.
sklin = i_newsklin.
check not status is initial.
Codes bellow shows the scenario mentioned in '2.'terms change, and baseline date type 'C'
T052 contains first entry for payment term key entered    "P00K005354
      case t052-zdart.                                "P00K005354
    when 'C'.                                    "P00K005354
       zfbdt = sy-datum.                     "P00K005354
       if i_cpudt is initial.                   "Note 199967
           zfbdt = sy-datum.                "P00K005354   <------ set to current date
       else.                                      "Note 199967
           zfbdt = i_cpudt.                   "Note 199967
       endif.                                     "Note 199967
   Is this a program logic error or is it the way it should be ?
Any one encounter the similar problem ? or should there be OSS notes to apply ?
Thank you .....

Hi,
If i gave the query that i mentioned above post, in my sql statement, the dynamic action is working but not fetching the correct date for the selected priority..
what is the answer that im getting is
When i select priority as low means
what is populating in my due date field is not the date im expecting........
it is giving some thing in the due date field like the below i mentioned.......
" ,,11/10/10 0&#58;0&#58;0,11/10/10 0&#58;0&#58;0,,,,,,,,,,11/24/10 0&#58;0&#58;0,11/24/10 0&#58;0&#58;0,,,,,,,,,,,11/04/10 0&#58;0&#58;0,,,,,,,11/24/10 0&#58;0&#58;0,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11/18/10 0&#58;0&#58;0,,,,,,11/24/10 0&#58;0&#58;0,,,11/24/10 0&#58;0&#58;0,11/24/10 0&#58;0&#58;0,,,,11/27/10 0&#58;0&#58;0,11/26/10 0&#58;0&#58;0,,,,,,,11/05/10 0&#58;0&#58;0,,,,11/24/10 0&#58;0&#58;0,11/24/10 0&#58;0&#58;0,,,,,,,,,,,11/19/10 0&#58;0&#58;0,11/05/10 0&#58;0&#58;0,11/24/10 0&#58;0&#58;0"
i dont know why it is returning like this......please help me........
Regards,]
Harry......

Visibility weird behavior after -Syu

Hello
I have been using visibility with openbox on my Arch 64 system for a long time and have been very pleased with both. I just did a full system update yesterday and have been experiencing a weird behavior on visibility ever since.
Usually when I clicked on an application on a different desktop than mine I was transported to that desktop and the application was focused.
Since the system update , whenever I click on an application on a different desktop, that application is moved to my current desktop. Meaning that if I actually clicked on every app running on every other desktop, they would all be moved to my current desktop. Weird and impractical if you ask me.
I am suspecting it has something to do with an upgrade on openbox ? I checked whether some new option/setting was installed on the config file but didn't notice anything.
Anyone else experiencing the same effect ?

Maybe one can easily change the visibility code to do it right ?
Problem is, i have NO knowlege about how this stuff works. Plus, i dont now c++
But i browsed through the code and found a file called 'window.cc' with this code:
bool Window::activate(void) {
255 Server * server = Server::instance();
256 XEvent event;
257 long mask = SubstructureRedirectMask | SubstructureNotifyMask;
258
259 event.xclient.type = ClientMessage;
260 event.xclient.serial = 0;
261 event.xclient.send_event = True;
262 event.xclient.display = server->display;
263 event.xclient.window = drawable;
264 event.xclient.message_type = server->net_active_window_atom;
265
266 event.xclient.format = 32;
267 event.xclient.data.l[0] = 2;
268 event.xclient.data.l[1] = 0;
269 event.xclient.data.l[2] = 0;
270 event.xclient.data.l[3] = 0;
271 event.xclient.data.l[4] = 0;
272
273 if (XSendEvent(server->display, server->root_window, False, mask, &event)) {
274 return true;
275 }
276 return false;
277 }
and in 'server.cc' i found this:
28 // set up atoms
29 net_active_window_atom = XInternAtom(display, "_NET_ACTIVE_WINDOW", False);
So what i think is, one need to change the 'Window::activate(void) ' function to first switch desktop and then activate the window.
Maybe this is total nonsense ... i dont know
Haench

SD Billing to FI Accounting: How to make Baseline Date equal to Entry Date?

Hello,
I have configured Baseline Date to be equal to Entry Date in the Payments Terms in OBB8. I have assigned this payment term to the Customer as well as the Sales Order.
But still, when I release a Billing Document to accounting through VFX3, the Baseline Date in the Accounting Document is taken as the Document Date/Posting Date.
What does the configuration in Payment Terms do?
How can I get the Baseline Date to equal the Entry Date?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Cheers!
Bharath

Just copy from the standrad delivered 0001 to some Z001 and change the date to entry date.
For me it is working fine. Also try first individually using FB60 or FB70 to llok at the behaviuor of the system.
reward if useful
sarma

Baseline Date in FB60

Hi,
We are using FB60 to create a vendor invoice.
Normally the BaselineDt would default as per the configuration in payment terms and the baseline date can be changed during the document entry, now my problem is eventhough the default for the baseline date is set as document date in the payment term, the document is not getting defaulted at the time of the document entry some times, the date is posting date.
Can anyone let me know whether there is any other setting for this default for baseline date or am I missing something in vendor master.
Thanks
Suresh

Have you configured all of your payment terms the same, i.e. to work of the document date or posting date?
This is an area you should check.
Remember you are saying sometimes, is that the same vendors or it happens for a vendor once and then not again.
To me it sounds like a payment term that has been configured to run off the posting date. You should be able to spot this by creating a query on BSIK.

Baseline Date Issue

Dear Experts,
I am facing a peculiar problem. In the payment terms configuration i have mentioned Posting Date as the baseline date. The invoice is created in our company when the goods are dispatched. At this point only the invoice is made and accounting/release to accounting is not done. Later, when the Bill of Lading comes back to us the accounting document is created. Now the system is expected to take the later (accounting) date as the baseline date but it is taking the invoice creation date as the baseline date. Please suggest a solution.
Warm Regards,
Mukesh

In export sales, this situation would be there predominently, where the Billing Date and Bill of Lading date differs and client insists that actual sales should be considered only based on Bill of Lading Date.
Since you already set the Posting Block as per your original post, whenever user tries to release the billing document via VF02, you can populate two fields
Bill of Lading Number and
Bill of Lading Date
via Function Module EXIT_SAPLV60B_001 in include ZXVVFU01 and whatever date user is keying in, that should be your posting date. This means, irrespective of your billing date, actual FI postings (sales) will happen only based on the date whatever user enters. If need, you can also add couple of more fields depending upon clients' requirement.
G. Lakshmipathi

Payment terms - Baseline date calculation.

Hi
In payment terms configuration, we have option "No Default" for determining Base line date.
If we have payment terms with above configuration.......
In Fi, Baseline field will be blank while posing Customer Invoice, in which case We can enter baseline date manually. However If Invoice is generated from SD-billing document, we dont have any field "Baseline date" while posting billing doc. In such case how system determines Baseline date. When I checked few billing documents, Baseline date is defaulted with BIlling date even "No default" option is selected.
Is there any configuration in SD that prompts this action. or is it always billing date is defaulted ?
Please clarify

Hi !! Madhu,
There is a way, but not exactly what u require! You can check while maintaining the condition records in t.code VK12, observe the last two columns available, one is called a 'Fixed Value date' & the other is called 'Add Val Days'.
If you make any entry in the field 'Fixed Value date' this will be the date from which the payment terms start taking effects. Or if you make an entry in Add Val Days' in this case the payment terms start taking effect from billing date + the no. of days mentioned in this column.
You cannot make a entry in both 'fixed value date' & 'Add Val date' fields at one time.
Give your feedback if this has worked for you.
Regards,
PATHIK

Weird behavior in master-detail

Dear Forum,
I need to implement an application but I still have a halting error.
I have this strange problem and I'll try to explain.
I have this masterscreen with search functionality. When I do a search, I get a result. When I now enter the details screen of the second row of the search result and I change the fields on the details screen and do a commit, I get the message that the changes were made successfully, but I see the primary key jump to the value of the primary key from the details of the first row of the search results on the masterscreen.
And when I look at the details of the first row, the changes were made in this details, and NOT in the details in which I needed to make the changes.
And now more weird... I can only reproduce the problem in Internet Explorer and whatever I try, it works correct in Firefox.
So the functionality should work as supposed, as it wouldn't work in Firefox.
Has anyone encountered this problem before or does anyone has a solution or tip to get to the solution?
Your help is much appreciated.
Arjen

Steven,
When I tried to create the logs you requested, I ran up to a different problem, also affecting this behavior. When I repaired this, still the weird behavior took place in Internet Explorer. And in Firefox the problem was solved. So I tried to disable the cache in Internet Explorer. This solved the problem there as well..
So this behavior doesn't happen anymore with the cache disabled, thus solved this problem.
Thanks for the effort anyway.
Arjen

Weird behavior in Classic or not?

It has been a long time since I've needed to use Classic (on 10.4.something) Today I needed to do something that could only be done in classic. I thought I saw some weird behavior so I tried a couple of other classic apps.    All started Classic just fine, brought up their document window and menu bar. But there was no classic desktop under the app's window and while the menu bar showed "finder" as an open application that could be switched to (the right-most menu item) but when I switched to it I got the OS X finder, not a OS 9 one.   Occasionally I can get what looks like a Finder menu bar, but that's on it are the Apple and Help and the app switcher.
Recently I've been playing with Sheepshaver on a Snow Leopard system, which brings up an honest-to-goodness OS 9 desktop.
Now, I am misremembering how Classic works (in effect, no desktop and no finder) or is something wrong. I checked all three of my systems running Tiger and they have the same behavior.   (A G4 -- that will still boot into OS 9, a powerbook G4, and a mac-mini.)
Ted Lee
Minnetonka, MN

OK, I found an article on rebuilding the desktop and it indicated that while there is a file for the OS9 desktop, in the classic environment it is invisible and can only be found through an alias that is created on the OS X desktop. I suspect I've deleted that alias since I didn't have any particular need for it.   The article tells you how to re-create the alias from the terminal. indeed there is a folder there and it is empty. No particular use for it -- if you select Desktop from an OS 9 app you get the OS X desktop.   I can also see why there's no real OS 9 finder -- anything you could have done from it you can do from the OS X finder -- except the "Apple Menu" and that's why that's under the classic icon on the right half of an OS X menu bar. There still is a "rebuild desktop" in the Classic prefs -- I assume that's so you get the right doc/app association in the classic environment, since I don't think OS X understands the classic creator/type info.
So sounds very much like I'm misremembering!
Ted Lee
Minnetonka, MN

Weird behavior in UCCX 7.0.1 SR05

Hi team,
I've got a weird behavior in a UCCX 7.01 SR05 installation.
All incomming calls which go to an agent who is set "ready" set the agent to state "not ready" and go to queue...
This behavior also occurs with standard script icd.aef.
Had anybody has same behavior in an UCCX 7 installation? Or can anybody help me? I checked my configuration twise and couldn't find
any issue.
Thanks a lot,
Tobias

I've seen this happen before because of a CUCM configuration issue. Check whether the CUCM Calling Search Space for the UCCX CTI ports can call the partition of the agent's extension. My guess is that the call attempts to connect but CUCM will not allow it to go through. UCCX then marks the agent as "Not Ready" and drops the call back in queue.

Weird behavior in baseline date in MIR4

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for