If Quality notification as follow up action fails

[Former Member]

Dear all

I have a situation where Quality notification is configured as a Follow up action once the UD is made.

So I am getting Create notification screen once UD is filled and SAVE button is clicked.

In Case some wrong data is entered in the Create notification screen and I am coming out of Notification without saving the notification.

The status of the inspection lot is getting flipped to UDed as expected.

But is there any setting where i can define if the Followup action is not successful( Notification not created), then wont make the UD of Inspection lot also. (OR some user status will get updated saying Notif not created etc..)

[busyaban7 · Accepted solution]

Hi Navdeep,

Thanks to Anand for his correct feedback.

Please note that as per standard SAP, unless and otherwise there is a defect created, there can't be a 1:1 link with inspection lot with the notification, though in the notification header table there is a placeholder available (QMEL-PRUEFLOS) to capture this inspection lot field. You are trying to use a follow-up action wherein, after UD you are always creating a notification based on business case. I believe, the FM you are using in follow-up action, is not presently populating QMEL-PRUEFLOS. So there can't be a link to find out when there is failures in notification creation, but UD happening successfully.

You can try out the below approach -

Approach - 1

During the UD save process, there should be additional checks happening. Ask the follow-up FM to update QMEL-PRUEFLOS or TEXT field with inspection lot for all successful notification creation and UD update, and send a confirmation email to approver or task processing partners, or the UD processing user ID (This email part can be skipped in case if this is not required). In case of any failures in notification creation at save, it should truncate the UD save process too and send a message to UD processing user for this failure.

Approach - 2

You can create a batch job running at the background to validate for which inspection lot there is no notification created, even though UD is done. Send a mail to the UD processing user to create a notification, as that is not created. User can then create it manually it by updating TEXT field in notification in foreground.

Thanks,

Arijit

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Thanks Arijit.

Considering to the approach 1- Follow up actions triggers when UD gets saved for lot.

So is it possible to Truncate the UD save process(Or we can say- reverse the UD), If failure of notification creation occurs.

[busyaban7 · Accepted solution]

Hi Navdeep,

UD reversal and UD truncate is different subject and please do not mix both. I think your ABAP colleague will be able to understand what I mean to say by UD truncate before final update of UD in the database table, only in the case of failure of notification creation. Please note that checking for failure of notification also needs to be checked form QMEL post update, and this part then needs to take the lead in truncating the UD update logic.

Thanks,

Arijit

[anand_rao3 · Accepted solution]

If the UD is given then notification can not be created against the lot. There is a note for UD reversal but this should not be recommended for this practice as it should be reserved for exceptional cases.

The interesting part is, notification number creation and UD happen at the same time unless you split them separately. So if you put the control while giving UD that it should first check if any notification is generated (against inspection lot) or not. For this, as Arijit suggested, you need to pass lot number in QMEL table to get QMNUM. If system does not find any notification then stop UD. The pity is that you have to first create the notification every-time and then have to give UD!

Anand

[Former Member]

Thanks all for your inputs.

Updated the QA32 with a new column containing the check box.

inspection lot needs to be passed to the QMEL and and if the notification doesnt exist the check box will be active so that user come to know that for this lot -Notification creation is pending.

[former_member211618]

Hi,

You can create the Notification through defect code in UD screen.

then if defect found only you can raise notification(You have to maintain Notification Type in Inspection type in IMG).

[anand_rao3]

I think you have developed custom FM for this, so you should explore with ABAP whether you can put these additional checks there or not!! In standard, system will always allow to proceed for UD irrespective of any notification is created or not as it does not know which lot would be having defects.

Additionally I would suggest you to explore enabling auto defect recording by choosing MIC with "Defect Recording" ticked in its control indicator. So whenever your actual reading falls out of tolerance range system will record the defect automatically and that in turn will generate notification also!

Anand

[Former Member]

Hi Anand,

As per my process, Notification should get created for all Inspection lots, QN not exactly linking with defects here but to make some stock movements and vendor emails etc.

So If notification creation fails and tomorrow when i log in the system, I am not able to recognise which inspection lot Notifications are not yet created.

[anand_rao3]

Ok! I am not fully aware what functional practice you are following but from system point of view there could be still some alternatives! Perhaps by creating notification for each lot will increase system volume. I apply below logic for this, correct me!!

1. If we consider only these 2 events - Email sending and stock posting; then both can be done without creating notifications also.
2. Follow up action can be developed for sending email which will collect the data from inspection lot. No notification is required for this.
3. Stock posting is anyhow a separate event and has no relation with notification in that way.

If you want UD should not happen unless entire stock posting is done, that is very well possible. Couple of informative threads are available on this.

But if you have already given thoughts on this then I would suggest to explore with ABAP if you can incorporate these additional checks in to existing program.

Anand