Does CJ20N employ top-down or bottom up approach to change status?

[Former Member]

Hi,

I'm developing a program which changes the statuses of Project / WBS / Network / Network Activity.

I have the Function Modules which would change the statues of Project, WBS, Network, Network Activities individually.

I would like to know in which order to use these.

In CJ20N, when we change the status of the Project, will the transaction set the status of the objects in the following order:

1. Project first

2. WBS's

3. Network

4. Network Activities

Or does it employ a bottom up approach to change statuses:

1. Network Activities first

2. Network

3 WBS's

4. Project

[Former Member]

In addition to what Shrikant has mentioned, in case you set the REL status on a WBS at a particular level the PREL status gets set for the object above this WBS. This includes the Project Definition. This also holds true in case of activities also. For e.g. If you set REL status on an activity the Network will be set with the PREL status.

You can try this out in your system and check.

[Former Member]

Thanks for your replies so far.

I still have a doubt.

Consider the following case.

If we employ the top-down approach, if I want to close a WBS by setting the status to TECO/TCO, is it logically correct to close a WBS before all the Networks and Activities below it have not been closed yet?

[Former Member]

Hi,

I agree with you, but thats why we use BAPI - as they have all business logic imbedded in them. The BAPI wont set status to closed if there is open commitment in any activities or WBS below main WBS.

Regards

Shrikant

[Former Member]

Hi,

It follows top-down approach ie first case which you mentioned. Also if you set status to higher level object, lower level objects inherit corresponding status.

Regards

Shrikant