BRF approvers not found for /SAPSRM/IF_EX_WF_RESP_RESOLVER

[Former Member]

hey guys,

I am getting this error saying strategy z_rr did not determine any approvers on the approval tab for PO's. Do you guys know why this is happening? I tested the methods in /SAPSRM/IF_EX_WF_RESP_RESOLVER and i didnt see any issues by plugging in values from the PO. thanks.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi ,

Check if the buyer who create the PO is in the approval list.. this would be the reason..

Best Regards,

Saravanan

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hey, where do i see the approval list? I am just pulling the contracting officer from the PO and getting the area guid for that to get the approvers. The error only exist when i enter in certain contracting officers.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi ,

did you get any dump in ST22 with wf-batch user id?

Saravanan

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Nope. I dont see any dumps. When i run the method /SAPSRM/IF_EX_WF_RESP_RESOLVER~GET_AREA_TO_ITEM_MAP I see an area guid but no item guid. Does that matter? Can the buyer and contracting officer be the same? Maybe that is causing an issue?

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Yes - That could be the reason , you have to pass the item guid and area guid to RT_ITEM_TO_AREA_MAP internal table if you want to create workitem.

Can the buyer and contracting officer be the same? - NO , Besically Requestor or Purchaser of the document should not in the approval list. you can debug and check in the class /SAPSRM/CL_WF_PROCESS_MANAGER method GET_RESPONSIBLE_AGENTS line # 39.

Saravanan

Edited by: Saravanan Dharmaraj on Jul 20, 2010 10:58 AM

Edited by: Saravanan Dharmaraj on Jul 20, 2010 10:59 AM

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi there,

I have found in my workflow that the agent is being deleted in this method because they are the documemt 'owner' as SAP says.

However, in our case when a user shops on behalf of someone else they want the person being 'shopped for' to be the first approver. This cannot happen due to this logic - is there a way to switch this off without changing standard?

Thanks a lot,

Nick