Block consumption update on retail sales during document posting

[Former Member]

Hi,

I would like the opinion of a more experienced person than myself to sense check what I am planning to do.

It is the first time that I would attempt to use an enhancement so I have some doubts.

Firstly we are using ECC 6 with the Retail tick on.

My scenario as follows:

In order to do forecasting on lines accurately we have decided to adjust consumption figures when we suspect an article was out of stock.

Thus instead of recording zeros for the days that an SKU was out of stock we instead calculate an expected sale and upload that to the consumption table MVER.

To qualify there must be no sales for the article on that day and the item was marked as possibly being out of stock at the end of the day.

All of which is working acceptably well.

However we do sometimes have problems with sales uploads which means the sales might come in after the consumption has been corrected.

So my problem:

I need to prevent a double posting of an article's consumption during the sales upload.

I have looked through customising and found the following enhancement point: MB_CF001

After looking on the forums it seems I am looking in the right place.

What I want to do is clear the consumption values contained in VM07M for the affected article after identifying that the article was indeed out of stock and already adjusted. This will be filtered according to the correct movement type (MSEG).

So the steps if I understand correctly are:

CMOD > create project > Assign enhancement MB_CF001.

Then I need an object key to edit the function call: EXIT_SAPLMBMB_001

Add the code as described above and activate the project.

Could someone confirm that I am in the right place and following the correct steps. The need for an object code has me worried and I am not sure whether I am even in the right place.

Thanks

Charl

[Former Member]

I noticed I can edit the include without having to get an object code for the enhancement, which is a big plus.

I think the logic is fine, but I have decided to try a different approach first before having to put my finger into the document process.