on 11-20-2014 5:15 PM
Hi Experts,
Need some help.
We are doing Post Goods Issue for STO (Intra-company) using RF transaction LM61.
After PGI is successfully posted, the interim storage type 916 still has the +stocks with delivery number as storage bin.
And also another entry with '-' stocks in 916 storage type with material document (PGI doc) as storage bin.
Did anyone come across this kind of scenario? Need help in fixing the issue.
We have checked all possible configuration points like storage type definition, Stringent FIFO etc.
Thanks,
Pratap R Mooli
Find the transfer orders which created this situation. Use transaction LT26 enter your warehouse number, the storage type 916 and the dynamic bin number to get the TO
Then check the movement types in those TOs.
The bin numbers and its origin is based on the definition of movement types
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Jurgen,
I am wondering what could be the reason for source and destination storage type to be 916 with source bin as delivery and destination bin as material document number (PGI doc).
This is causing inconsistency in the 916 storage type stock (One entry with + and another with - stocks)
Thanks,
Pratap
Yes of course it creates inconsistencies, but it is your customizing not SAP's default.
Why are you using 999 at all in this process?
Which movement created the negative quant, 641 or 999?
Can it be that you activate the box for material document number as dynamic bin in OMNF Define Requirement Types for reference L sales document?
unfortunately not clear.
The standard process is to create a delivery, from the delivery you create a TO, then you pick the TO and confirm it (with RF in your case) and finally you post goods issue.
What shall a TO do after a goods issue? How can you scan something which has already left your warehouse?
Manish,
We found the reason for the issue.
The reason for it was in Shipping control-> Requirement types for deliveries (Requirement type L), the Dyn. Bin as Material document was flagged even though it is display field.
We had reversed the changes and are doing testing. I believe we should be through.
Thanks for all the support.
Pratap R Mooli
User | Count |
---|---|
85 | |
7 | |
6 | |
4 | |
3 | |
3 | |
3 | |
3 | |
3 | |
2 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.