Transaction Variant thru SHD0 issue

[Former Member]

Hi,

We have created a Transaction Variant for VL01N --> de-activate Post Goods Issue button thru tcode SHD0.

Now issue is that it effect of other client also.

Means we have 3 clients on same server. and ab above requires only on single client. But if also de-activate on others.

How can I do the same for single client.

Please guide.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Anil

Create a custom t code for VL01N. eg ZVL01N.

Then deactivate PGI in ZVL01N.  Ask the users of the particular client to use ZVL01N instead of VL01N. you may also deactivate the T-code in authorisation profile.

Thanks and regards

Pronojit Gupta

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Is there any Standard way to do the same...???

[moazzam_ali · Accepted solution]

Hi

There is no standard way to do the same. There are two ways only. One is already shared in which you can create separate Tcode or you can activate variant only for that user to whom you want to restrict. For this user specific variant required.

Another way is to go for userexit and write your code in userexit and put restriction if Tcode is VL01N and user wants to do PGI then through some error. Your ABAPer would be able to do this.

Thank$

[former_member183424 · Accepted solution]

You can trace the t-code VL01N from ST01. Check is there system is fetching any authorization object for clicking PGI.

If you don't find any, then you can create a new authorization object for the PGI option with the help of your BASIS team.

[phanikumar_v3 · Accepted solution]

If we create new TcodeZVL01n--

but we are not changing the underlying program of VL01n--then it will effects all the clients..

Hope this helps...

Phanikumar

[moazzam_ali]

If VL01N and VL02N users are different then there is another way to control this.

Remove authorization of 601 movement type from user's profile and assign VL01N Tcode only. For VL02N user remove VL01N Tcode from user's profile and assign 601 movement type and VL02N Tcode. I dont know whether there are same users or different. See if it helps.

Thank$

[Former Member]

Hi,

We have removed the authorization for 601 movement type from users profile in auth. object. M_MSEG_BWA...

Also remove the tcode VL02N from user profile...Even though user can able to do PGI thru VL01N tcode.

Please suggest.

[Lakshmipathi]

Even though user can able to do PGI thru VL01N tcode

If your project have a Security team and they have done this, I don't think, it is possible.  If you have authorization to SUIM, execute it, click on Roles > By Authorization Object.  There check once again for that user whether they got the authorization.  If you don't have authorization to access SUIM, then execute UST12 table through whichh also you can check.

G. Lakshmipathi

[Former Member]

We provide the authorization object M_MSEG_BWA with all movement types except 601....

[former_member183424]

Check your authorization setting again.

I have tested the same in my system, My user can't do PGI from VL32N. He get this error

This authorization has failed during the transaction

[Former Member]

But why not showing error in VL01N in my system.

Also confirm, you are trying to do PGI from VL32N.... as your comments....

[former_member183424]

I have tested from VL01N also.  I got same error.

This authorization failed

[Former Member]

Thanks dear...

It seems there is any mistake from our end....i will check the same...

Also confirm one more thing, you are able to do PGI thru VL02N tcode....???

[former_member183424]

No. My first screen shot was for VL02N.

I am not able to do PGI from both VL01N and VL02N..

I can give you the authorization settings, which I have done in PFCG settings. It may helpful for you.

[Former Member]

We cann't do the PGI from same user id thru vl02n but if we provide the authorization of vl02n to another id with 601 mvt. type...he can do the same....

i think, it will be OK....what you suggest....???

[former_member183424]

Yes.. Correct.

[moazzam_ali]

Hi

It means you did something wrong or you are missing anything. This should work for sure because I have done this a lot of time. You have to check with your BASIS guy that how many profiles or roles are assigned to that users.

Thank$