cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

LT03 - Issue in reference item no.(LTAP-POSNR)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Gurus,

Iu2019m facing an issues while creating a TO for delivery in case of batch split, can anyone help me on this?

Actually I have created an outbound delivery with batch split, let's take the below example.

Item Material Quantity Batch

10 XXXX

90001 XXXX 10 Batch1

90002 XXXX 12 Batch2

While creating a TO for that delivery system taking the reference item no. as 90001 and 90002 (LTAP-POSNR). When I check the same in other system (production), it is taking high level delivery item no. (i.e. 10 as per above example) rather than batch split item no. But there is no difference in between the systems.

Because of this iu2019m facing an issue in the Z-report.

Can anyone tell me what might be issue?

Thank you very much in advance

Narasimman.R

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

What exactly is the issue with the Z report?

Is it just a case that you want to see the batch split on the Z report? If so this is just a matter of ticking the box labelled 'Batch Split Details' under Additional Information prior to running the Z report. What you will see on the report then is the top level of the delivery on one line and the batch split items on the next lines.

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Peter,

My issue is the u201Creference itemu201D field in TO (LTAP-POSNR) is getting filled with two different values in different system (But there no difference between the systems).

When I do a test in quality system, the reference item field is getting filled with delivery batch split sub-item (900XX) in TO. Where as in production, this field is filled with delivery item no. i.e. 10, 20.....

So I want to know why it is getting populated with two different values. Is there any setting or control over?

christian_rosa
Employee
Employee
0 Kudos

Hello,

please check if the URL below (similar thread) satisfy your question:

Regards,

Former Member
0 Kudos

This message was moderated.