double SO for one PO number

[Former Member]

Hi SD/XI masters,

I have a problem regarding IDOC / SO generation. 2 SOs are being generated for a single PO Number. We have a mapping in XI that checks the PO number if it already exists in SAP. If it already exists, the IDOC ORDERS05.ORDCHG will be used, otherwise ORDERS05.ORDERS will be used. The SO should just be updated if the PO number already exists in SAP. What happened in our case is 2 SOs are being generated for a single PO. The old SO was not updated and a new SO was generated. Anyone have any ideas why this happened?

[MichalKrawczyk · Accepted solution]

Hi,

>>>at happened in our case is 2 SOs are being generated for a single PO. The old SO was not updated and a new SO was generated. Anyone have any ideas why this happened?

sure

the check - if the SO is already created didn't work

and you created a new one instead of doing the update

what else ?

correct the check and it will work

Regards,

Michal Krawczyk

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

in the XI mapping logic, if the PO number is already existing, no new SO for that PO Number should be created. That same SO should only be updated. There should only be one SO number for one PO number.

Because of this problem, the clients are billed twice.

[MichalKrawczyk · Accepted solution]

hi,

>>in the XI mapping logic, if the PO number is already existing, no new SO for that PO Number should be created

exactly - this logic is correct but the implementaiton was done in a wrong way as you have two SO right?

what else would you expect from us? implement the logic correctly (so it will really check if the PO exists) and it will work

Regards,

Michal Krawczyk

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Yavi!

Please check the "process codes" or "segment codes" in your IDocs (unfortunately I currently have no R/3 system so I cannot tell you the exact name of the segment fields). They may control whether updates or inserts are done. Typical content is 001 or 002 or 003 ....

Regards,

Volker

[Former Member]

No known solution for this. Might be a glitch in the server..