on 11-12-2013 11:15 AM
Hi all,
I have a requirement to avoid splitting of the invoice document when the below points are different in sales order.
1.Payer
2.Payment terms
3.Destination country
4.Actual GI date
5.Incoterms
6.Billing date and billing due date
7.Billing doc type
8.Foreign data trade
9. Sold to party
I need to stop the splitting only for the sales organization DE10(germany).
Please resolve my query
Hi,
unfortunately, it's not possible. Please check oss note 11162 (when different header partners and header fields, system produces splits).
Regards,
JM
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hi Techies,
Thanks for all your valuable comments.
But unfortunately the user don't want this requirement now.he confirmed a month back.
sorry for my late reply..
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Add the logic into a routine from VOFM and assign it to your copy control VTFL.
G. Lakshmipathi
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hi Malini VK,
please review first note 11162, as mentioned above by joan mas.
Your requirement is impossible to fulfill. Header partners such as Payer and Sold-To-Party have to be identical, otherwise a split can not be avoided.
This is simple logic, how do you want to combine two different payers into one invoice? Who should pay? There can only be one payer in one invoice. If they are different, then split must occur and separate invoices have to be created for each of them.
Also other fields you mentioned, how do you want to combine them? This is not possible. Different payment terms - what payment term should be used?
All is explained in the note - header fields and header partners lead to a split. In general if the field content is not needed in the invoice then to avoid split it could be cleared. But you mention such fields and partners, which are essential and the data is required .
Best regards,
Tobias
Hi
Define a structure called ZUK with some fields until 40 characters. With the concatenation of all strings you will populate the field ZUKRI and for each different value SAP will split in different documents. Check as a template the VOFM 001 (INCLUDE FV60C001).
If all fields are more than 40 char, use offsets to define ZUK, for instance with dates (use date+2(6), so you use 6 characters and not 8, and with partners, instead to use the 10 characters, analyze it and perhaps with the last 5 is enough, eg: partner+5(5))
If you need more help, let us know
Regards
Eduardo
Hi Malini,
in transaction code VTFL, identify you source and target document, choose item category, check what is the routine assign in field VBRK/VBRP
if it is standard routine, you can copy this to a custom routine and make necessary changes according to your requirement
ask your developer to make changes,
regards,
santosh
Hi Tobias,
As I understood it, I suggest something that I elaborate now:
INCLUDE FV60C999 (for instance vofm 999 for setting it in copy rules) (in a kind of pseudo-coding, my apologies)
DATA: BEGIN OF ZUK,
MODUL(3) VALUE '001',
VTWEG LIKE VBAK-VTWEG,
SPART LIKE VBAK-SPART,
END OF ZUK.
DATA: BEGIN OF ZUKDE01,
PAYER(5),
ZTERM(4),
DESTC(2),
"and go on until 40 char
END OF ZUKDE01.
IF vbrk-vkorg = 'DE01'.
ZUKDE01-PAYER = PAYER+5(5).
ZUKDE01-ZTERM = ZTERM.
ZUKDE01-DESTC = LAND1.
"and go on.
VBRK-ZUKRI = ZUKDE01.
ELSE.
ZUK-SPART = VBAK-SPART.
ZUK-VTWEG = VBAK-VTWEG.
VBRK-ZUKRI = ZUK.
ENDIF.
If I am in a mistake, my apologies. The last is that I understood, because you are right, according SAP Note 11162 - Invoice split criteria in billing document.
Regards
Eduardo
Hi Eduardo,
no, you do not have to apologize.
Well the coding you show fills data into field VBRK-ZUKRI, consisting of payer, payment term, destination country.
Now during invoice creation this header field is checked and compared, and if the content of the field is not identical for the deliveries that should be combined, then a split is forced in this way.
The original requirement described by Malini VK is to avoid split, even if the fields are different. So the opposite should be achieved.
Best regards,
Tobias
User | Count |
---|---|
108 | |
12 | |
11 | |
6 | |
5 | |
4 | |
3 | |
3 | |
3 | |
3 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.