Email of PO functionality

[former_member226908]

Hi MM gurus,

Our Client wants the functionality to send email of PO when creating POs.

I have created a new output type and email is being sent to the Vendor correctly.

I was wondering if email body can have some text. So have used SODIS transaction. Many different people might create POs, so there cannot be scenario to create different disclosures for different enterprise areas and assign these documents to users, company addresses, e-mail domains, or fax numbers.

So I created a default disclosure.

But the problem is that there is another output type which is also used for external send. So for that output also the default disclosure is selected.

How do we stop this? Any pointers will be highly appreciated.

Thanks

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hello Kathik,

There are some standard features to try to manage text in email body sent. Explore the output type configuration in transaction NACE.

Refer to this note : 191470 - Purchase order as an e-mail

However, from my practice, I would say that it is more simple to use enhancements to create the text body of the mail.

It will be easier to manage the content of the mail, handle variable texts and so on... Search about enhancements to the function module SBCOMS_SEND_REQUEST_CREATE

That is a more interesting direction than SODIS .

Alexandre

[Florian · Accepted solution]

But SODIS can be used without coding a line and therefore it is a one-time work and always to prefer...

~Florian

[former_member226908 · Accepted solution]

Thanks Alexandre

[former_member226908 · Accepted solution]

Hi Florian, I understand, but how to solve my issue using SODIS, for example two or more output types for external send is used and I want the Standard Disclosure to be picked for only one message output type and not others.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hello Florian,

I agree also that doing using the standard is always to be investigated first.

In Karthick's situation, I have actually never used SODIS (it might be by ignorance ) but eventually, there are always additional requirements coming like adding this or that field dynamically and so on... So in the end it is more interesting to develop a good "own" routing  rather than being unhappy with the standard.

Alexandre

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hello Karthik,

If the discussion is closed from your perspective, have a quick read at this document from Juergen .

Alexandre