Is it mandatory to have SC-SM relationship

[former_member182585]

Hi,

I have a basic question here. Is it mandatory to have SC-SM relationship? I want to use SC-CG-SM pattern in academic structure and don't want to display modules related to SC.

Regards

Vinod Kumar

[dirk_pape3]

Hi Vinod,

in general there should be no problem with the SC-CG-SM or SC-CG*-SM (* arbitrary CG levels) pattern. So far I know all Standard SAP functionality is aware of the pattern and its use is encouraged.

But if you are working on an existing implementation you should first ask or check, whether there are any assumptions in customer specific coding or connected systems, e. g. in Z-Reports, export of academic catalog to XML/HTML and so on, which might be offended.

Dirk.

[former_member182585]

Hi Dirk,

Indeed, its a re-implementation project. The issue is about Appraisal Templates.

I have assigned appraisal templates (AT) to module with date constraint. For example AT1 has a validity from 10.01.2010 to 15.12.2012. Another template say AT2 has a validity from 16.12.2012 onward. With SC-SM relationship intact system is displaying correct AT applicable as on date.

If i delete relationships between SC and SM (using PP01) system is behaving in abrupt manner. In PIQSMFU system is not picking the new AT2, rather it is showing AT1 only although its not valid as on date. Is it standard behavior of PIQSMFU?

Regards

Vinod Kumar

[former_member182585]

Got it. System is reading the academic calendar from SC. If SC relationship is not there it will go to Org level and fetching its date. Now, the dates at Org level are different from session dates hence the discrepancy.

[dirk_pape3]

So -if you still want to get rid of the direct SC-SM- you might consider to review your settings for the evaluation path finding the academic calendar which can be set globally or by process.

Depending on which CA you want to find, you can adjust it, so it finds -CG(-CG)*-SC before it reaches the O.

But beware again of side effects in existing implementations: As far as I know, the standard path does not even evaluate SM-B500-SC-->CA as it seems to do in your case, hence this might have been changed in your situation. It indeed contains SM-B501-O-->CA so its reasonable that it reaches the O which offers the SM quite early, regardless whether the SM has been attached to the SC or to CG or hangs around unattached.

Dirk