Purchase Order Error in account assignment

[Former Member]

Hi all,

I am running SRM 7.0 Extended Classic scenario for the creation of purchase orders.

Purchase Orders are correctly created in SRM and passed to ECC in our DEV system. But in our QAS system we are getting the following error in SRM Purchase Order:

BBP_PD 822 Error in account assignment for item 1

Any idea what I am missing in the QAS system?

Thanks

Ezequiel

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

BBP_PD 822 Error in account assignment for item 1

This error usually does not stand alone. It is a general error message indicating there are errors in accounting set of the document. You should run a check for the PO document in your QAS system. There should be more than just this error.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Jay,

Your are right, the following is the complete list of errors for the purchase order:

E BBP_PD 047 Complete all mandatory fields

E BBP_PD 822 Error in account assignment for item 1

br

Ezequiel

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Unfortunately, BBP_PD 047 doesn't tell much either. Take a closer look at your PO from the web frontend, and check if any mandatory fields in the account assignment detail screen for item 1, typically marked with red "*", are missing.

[former_member183819 · Accepted solution]

Hi Eze

hope you might have seen this message from SAP

please find the comments given by SAP

1. Yes, BBP_PD 047 and BBP_PD 822 are displayed as warning message in

SRM per standard system design.

2. Yes, since these messages can represent different kind of errors in

SRM, coming from R/3 backend, the customizing "Influence Message

Control" doesn't have effect in this case. A BADI would be a good

solution.

3. With the BBP_DOC_CHECK_BADI, you can check the accounting information

and perform a strict accounting verification, performing an

exception when necessary.

i even i too get this error in IDES long time back.

br

Muthu

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Jay, there is no field missing to fill. All fields at item detail level are filled with data.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Muthu, in our case messages BBP_PD 047 and BBP_PD 822 are in Error. The error is not caused by a BADI because we have deactivated all BADIs to test and the errors are still showing.. What else could be that is causing these errors?

Thanks

Eze

[former_member183819 · Accepted solution]

HI

check with SAP . since i had this issue in my training server long back. I think it is releated with some SP. i tried all possible ways make w., e etc via influencing. kindly check with SAP. and indeed appreciate all your threads with solutions provided by your question.

br

muthu

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Now I am curious. Set a breakpoint in FM "BBP_PD_MSG_ADD" and run the check for the PO. When the FM hits, check the precious call in the stack. Let me know.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Jay, thanks for the info. We set the breakpoint in the FM and we see the following:

GT_BYPASS_LOG Standard Table[1x1(2)]

I_MSGTY E

I_MSGID BBP_PD

I_MSGV1 Complete todos los campos obligatorios

I_MSGV2

I_MSGV3

I_MSGV4

I_P_GUID 00000000000000000000000000000000

I_ITEM_GUID 00000000000000000000000000000000

I_SET_GUID 00000000000000000000000000000000

I_SET_TYPE

I_FIELD_NAME

LR_LOG

While debugging we enter FM BBP_PROCDOC_CHECK. and we were able to see both errors ,but we were not able yet to determine what is causing them appear. What do you suggest to check?

Thanks

Ezequiel

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

1) When the break point stops at the FM I mentioned, show me the call stack.

2) In that debugging screen, double click on the second from the top of the stack and see exactly where and why the FM is called.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Jay, thanks for the explanation,

From our customer message SAP answered us that the error is coming from a Finance Validation that is checking that the field Segment (COBL-SEGMENT) in the Account assignment is filled with a value.

The call stack is the following:

13 FUNCTION BBP_PD_MSG_ADD SAPLBBP_PDH_MSG

12 FORM COBL_CHECK_ALL SAPLBBP_PDACC

11 FORM ACCOUNT_MAINTAIN_ALL_RECORDS SAPLBBP_PDACC

10 FORM ACCOUNT_F_CHECK SAPLBBP_PDACC

9 FUNCTION BBP_ACCOUNT_CHECK SAPLBBP_PDACC

8 FORM ITEM_F_CHECK_FROM_WTAB SAPLBBP_PDIAD

7 FORM ITEMLIST_F_CHECK SAPLBBP_PDIAD

6 FUNCTION BBP_ITEMLIST_CHECK SAPLBBP_PDIAD

5 FORM PROCDOC_DB_CHECK SAPLBBP_PD

4 FORM PROCDOC_CHECK SAPLBBP_PD

3 FUNCTION BBP_PROCDOC_CHECK SAPLBBP_PD

2 FORM DISPLAY_DOCUMENT BBP_PD

1 EVENT ATUSER-COMMAND BBP_PD

In form COBL_CHECK_ALL, error message is coming from calling function 'META_ACCSERV_CHECKACCASSIGNMT'

CALL FUNCTION 'META_ACCSERV_CHECKACCASSIGNMT'

EXPORTING

logical_system = p_com-logsys_fi

TABLES

bbp_cobl = t_cobl

exp_cobl = t_new_cobl "note 202684

return = t_return

control_record = control_record.

I think we have two ways to solve it:

1. If we manage to deactivate somehow this error in SRM, then when PO is generated the value will be mapped from PR in ECC.

2. This field Segment is not available in customizing for account assignments for SRM (table BBP_V_C_ACCFC). Is it any way to have it in SRM?

Can you suggest please,

Many thanks,

Thanks,

Ezequiel

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

OK. Thanks for the details.

Before you decide on suppressing the error or work around it, you might want to take a closer look at the account assignment object at hand. There has to be some element of it accounting object which does not agree with your FI system in the backend. What's the account assignment category for it? If it is "Order", take a look at the status of it and see if the order has been closed (TECO-ed), etc. From SRM end, the system does nothing but to relay the error in a generic way. If you could, debug across to FI and chances are you could find the exact error, but then it is also a bit beyond me to help you on that.

What I am suggesting is to dig a little deeper to the root cause of this issue from the business process end of it instead of working around it. Does it make sense to you?

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Jay,

Issue is solved now, we have detected that the error was coming from a Finance Validation in the backend. We set a condition in the validation that if the Transaction is initial (this happens when user is the RFC connection) the whole validation is bypassed.

Thanks for your help!!

Ezequiel