I think this may be a function for our Developers but need confirmation. Removing authorization objects, IE: activity values, does not perform the requested task. Any suggestions would be helpful and appreciated.
Authorization object FI_ZAH_BUK for RERAPP was seperated. However, I discovered additional roles applied to users that carried the auth object without RERAPP that caused bleed through. Still working with the functional team to address the additional roles. Thank you for your assistance.
I created a seperate role that contains tcode RERAPP with auth object FI_ZAH_BUK with activity 48 for simulation only. A seperate role was used with both activities (48 - simulate; 10 - post) as required by the business. Yes, this did function as expected.
However, we have additional real estate roles that carry the auth object FI_ZAH_BUK with the same activies. You may want to check your real estate roles to see if the auth object is called elsewhere and decide if/how you are going to update those roles. For us, the business did not want the additional RE roles touched at this time.
Bowen, Thank you for your quick response. I appreciate the assistance. May I elaborate further? The business owner is able to perform Simulate and/or Update in the current role structure. They are requesting to remove that functionality from within the role and isolate seperately into two seperate roles, one for Simulate only and one for Update only. I am not able to see from an authorization object perspective where I can isolate this. Admittedly, I may be overlooking something obvious. Our testing has not proven successful in what they are requesting, hence my post. I hope this helps to clarify further. Again, I thank you.
maybe you are looking for the authorization object FI_ZAH_BUK that can be used to separate authorization for simulation or update when performing transaction RERAPP.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.