Determination to require "assignment to CO object"

[aotto]

Hi all,

Situation:

2 equal G/L accounts and cost elements Y and X.

When posting through e.g. FB01 to Y booking is accepted. When posting to X, I receive the error "account needs assignment to co object", which we all know.

I've created 2 new accounts (FS01/KA01) referencing one from Y and one from X. After that both new accounts receive the same error. So even when referencing from the account Y (which doesn't provoke the error) I do get the error with the new account.

We do have a substitution in place (and no validations), which automatically assigns CO for the accounts, but it doesn't make it to begin to check the substitution rules. Because, if it would, it would now which CO to use (I've added the new accounts to the rule).

Now my questions.

1) How can it be that with account Y no check for CO is done and for all other cost elements created afterwards check is done. Solution I know (enter e.g. default CO in KA02), but I don't understand why the check isn't done with the first account.

2) What check is done before going to substitution rules & validation?

Thanks for your help as always,

Alexis

[ankit_agarwal8]

Hi Alexis,

Can you provide a screen shot of your substituion rule.

Regards,

Ankit K. Agarwal

[aotto]

Hi Ankit,

The issue is, that it won't make it to start to check the substitution rules. Any idea what check it does before?

Thanks!

Alexis

[ankit_agarwal8]

Hi Alexis,

Have you checked this behaviour through activating Substitution Trace?? If not, pls check this through substitution trace.

Regards,

Ankit K. Agarwal

[aotto]

Hey Ankit,

Yes, I already did that, but because it won't make it to start checking the substitution rules, it doesn't help. I did enter the CO in the cost element's master data. Then ran the substitution trace and it worked correctly. So there is a check before the substitution and validations rules, which throws the error, that the account needs an assignment to a co object.

Any other ideas?

Thanks again,

Alexis

[AntonFarenyk]

Alexis Otto wrote:

Any other ideas?

May be set break-point in include LKAIPF49 and debug both cases (GL X and Y) in parallel.

[aotto]

Hi Anton, thanks for your input.

I couldn't find LKAIPF49 within SAPMF05A, but I don't know ABAP enough. On the other hand I cannot ask an ABAPer to help... It's not an urgent or very important issue, but for my own interest I just can't seem to figure out why it handles two seemingly equal accounts as different.

Regards,

Alexis

[AntonFarenyk]

Hi Alexis,

Following screen-shot will give you an idea on where LKAIPF49 is called from FB01.

In fact include LKAIPF49 is the only place where the error is triggered. So what you need to do is go to SE38 and in LKAIPF49 set a break-point. Then get down in stack, check what happens, set break-point earlier and analyze why you are getting there in one case and not getting there in another. Every time restart debug in parallel and compare variables and logic. For sure some qualified ABAP help on-site would be easier but still can take many hours to find the root cause.

Best regards,

Anton

[aotto]

Does anyone has an idea?

Thanks again,

Alexis

[former_member198650]

Hi,

What is the cost element category for both the cost elements and also check validity?

Regards,

Mukthar

[aotto]

Hello Mukthar,

Both are cat. 1 - Primary costs/cost-reducing revenues

First one valid from 01.01.2005 and the second account from 01.01.2015.

Thanks for your help,

Alexis

[former_member193513]

Hi Alexis

Can you check if both the Gl accounts you are referring to have to same field status group assigned

Regards

Prasad

[aotto]

Hi Prasad, sorry, forgot to mention this specifically in the original posting: yes, they have.

Thanks again,

Alexis

PS Furthermore, for both variants Cost Object is surpressed.