Status for the transferred Suppliers is not updated in ROS client!

[Former Member]

Hi all,

We are running on SRM 5.0(Sp6).After i transfer the propects from ROS to EBP and when i convert them to VENDOR in EBP,then the status of the suppliers become "RELEASED" in EBP but the status is not updated in ROS client.

What is to be done so that once the prospect is saved as a VENDOR in EBP,its status should be updated /set as RELEASED in ROS client too?

Any help is appreciated...Points will be rewarded.

BR,

Disha.

[khan_voyalpadusman]

refer note

Note 857386 - ROS: Meaning of status values for vendors in the ROS process

[Former Member]

Khan,

OSS note is useful and our requirement is also the same. Once the ROS suppliers are transfered to EBP the ROS supplier BP status should change to "Released", which is not happening. Due to which the same supplier is reappearing in the Accepted List.

We are working on SRM 5.

Regards,

Sandeep

[Former Member]

Hello,

Did you find the solution to this problem?

Regards,

[Former Member]

EBP can update this status for ROS BP only in form of XML

so you need to import this package on XI if you want to do this.

This is the outcome of discussion with SAP on this subject

BR

Dinesh

[Former Member]

Hello,

I transfer the supplier from EBP to SUS using SupplierPortalTradingPartner_CreateOrChange_Out proxy, this way doesn't update the status on ROS. Do you refer to other XML comunication???

Best Regards,

[Former Member]

Hi All.

is there another way without using XI to transfer bp statusa from ebp to sus in a dual client environment?

( client 1; ros + sus, client 2 ebp).

when we set "portal vendor" flag and save we correctly get a bp on ebp but no mails are generated for first sus login.

[Ramki]

Hi Disha

The status in ROS will be set when you the vendor is transferred to SUS from EBP.

When you create BP in EBP, if you check 'Portal Vendor', it will also try to create in BP SUS and a registration email sent to vendor's email. You create a Admin user using the links & details in mail and the status is updated in ROS.

Best regards

Ramki

[Former Member]

Hi Ramki,

Please correct me if I have misunderstood your reply.I have tested that When we create the Vendor User ID (using the registration email ),the status for the vendor BP is not updated in ROS client.The status for the Vendor is "RELEASED" in EBP but is "ACCEPTED" in ROS client due to which i can again transfer the vendor to EBP client and create a new BP for him.

Also we have maintained different number range for Business partner in ROS and EBP client.

BR,

Disha.

[Former Member]

Hi Experts,

Any suggestions??

BR,

Disha.

[Ramki]

Hi Disha

ROS BP status is set to 'Released' only when you use SUS.

1) When you create vendor in EBP from ROS, check PORTAL Vendor

2) You should have mapped relevant XI mappings to transfer vendor from EBP to SUS.

When a Portal vendor is ticked and BP is saved in EBP, a XML message is generated and sent to SUS to create BP .

This XML message also updates the status in ROS to 'Released'.

Best regards

Ramki

[Former Member]

Hi Ramki,

Thanks for the update...But we are using SUS only for Vendor user ID creation..But for the Status update may be we will need XI also..which is not possible now...

Will think of some other workaround to update the Status in ROS...

BR,

Disha.

[Former Member]

Disha,

Did you manage to find workaround to update BP Status in ROS?

Regards,

Sandeep

[Former Member]

Deepti / Ramakrishna,

As per Rama's comments, the BP status is released only when we use SUS and the information is passed via XI. However in our case we have ROS (without SUS) and EBP in same client. In this scenario XI is not required to transfer the Business partner status as per OSS note 1134978.

So any idea how do we change the status from ACCEPTED to RELEASED?

Deepti - in one of the thread you did mention about a workaround to update the status? Did you manage to crack it?

Do you recommend having separate client for ROS, so that system automatically trigger XML message by standard?

Regards,

Sandeep Parab