cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

AUTHS not polled for expense reports in FITV_POWL_TRIPS?

Lukas_Weigelt
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hey folks,

System Info:

NW AS 7.03 ABAP Stack 731 Level 8, ECC 606 (EHP 6) with SAP_HR 604 Level 69 and EA_HR 607 (HR-Renewal 1) Level 20

Background:

We have the following requirements for our business process:

  • an Employee is allowed to create Travel Requests and Expense Reports from scratch and may save them as a draft ( 1-0/3-0 ) or send them for further processing ( 1-1/3-1 ).
  • an Employee is allowed to delete Travel Requests and Expense Reports that are in draft mode.
  • an Employee is allowed to create Expense Reports based on approved Travel Requests ( 2-1 --> 3-0 || 3-1 ).
  • an Employee is allowed to change a Request that is in draft mode and may save it in draft mode again or send it for further processing ( 1-0 --> 1-0 || 1-1 )
  • an Employee is allowed to change an Expense Report that is in draft mode and may save it in draft mode again or send it for further processing ( 3-0 --> 3-0 || 3-1 )

Here's how our P_TRAVL has been configured (3 instances):

Problem:

An Expense Claim in draft mode can be changed into a Request again, i.e. the Trip is still published in the "Requests" tab of the POWL and the change-action jumps into FITE_REQUEST, which is not wanted by us, hence not configured like that in P_TRAVL. To make things worse, in case you change things here and save them, the data is NOT saved and the status remains the old one in the database, but the workflow sends the request to the approver again, so HOORAY FOR INCONSISTENT DATA!

What I did/tried/analyzed so far:

I've debugged the application and it looks to me in LPTRA_UTIL_TRIPSF01 FORM access_authorisation_req_acc like AUTHS is never checked for trips that are in Expense Report mode. I haven't found anything in SapxSearch; there are some discussions about status 2-1 to 3-0 etc. which I also participated in, but none for my particular use case now, i.e. 3-0 --> XX.

I'm aware I can manipulate things in PTRA_UTIL_TRIPS_GET_LIST and the Feeder Class, but IMHO this shouldn't be necessary...

It would be nice if somebody could confirm my problem before I raise a message for SAP.

Cheers, Lukas

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Lukas,

from my point of view your anylazation is much more complete than often have seen on an OSS customer message.

So even without checking - GO for raising a message to SAP (as a customer you are paying a lot of money to get help for "code crap"). I'm sure your concern is valid....

And if SAP will not come back with a solution - just let me know your consulting budget

Cheers,

Sigi

Lukas_Weigelt
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

from my point of view your anylazation is much more complete than often have seen on an OSS customer message.

So even without checking - GO for raising a message to SAP (as a customer you are paying a lot of money to get help for "code crap"). I'm sure your concern is valid....

Thanks and yes, I'll raise the message today. Can't do harm asking on the forums beforehand though, even if my depth of my question doesn't meet the current overall "hi i have serious urgent error please do needful" standards


And if SAP will not come back with a solution - just let me know your consulting budget

Arrrrgh, you're hitting a raw point there . Up until today I've never failed to solve a problem (whatever the casualties) because the pride demon dwells within.... and on top there's that certain ideology in the public sector about in-firm employees and external consultants, but let's not go into detail about that one.

In case SAP really doesn't intend to fix this, I'll recode all permission flags in an implicit post-enhancement of PTRA_UTIL_TRIPS_GET_LIST.

Cheers, Lukas

Lukas_Weigelt
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Solved: The SAP Support pointed out Note #1842355. In the expert view V_T702N_A line "other expenses", column 29, you can configure that requests and plans for which an expense report exists, cannot be changed anymore; i.e. this parameter fills the gap in the authority handling.

Cheers, Lukas

Former Member
0 Kudos

Great! I like the expert view and the developer which take enhancements here

Answers (0)