In the mapping for Route Determination Conversion, Should we mention TROLZ and TROIZ tables, or V_TROLZ00, V_TROLZ01 and V_TROLZ02 tables?

[former_member505946]

Please help me to understand the difference between TROIZ/TROLZ tables against V_TROLZ00, V_TROLZ01 and V_TROLZ02 tables. I am preparing a Route Determination conversion Functional Spec. I am not sure which tables/fields to be mentioned for mapping. The client needs the route determination data to be loaded for Order and Delivery.

Please help. Thanks

[former_member505946 · Accepted solution]

Can Anybody help please???

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Anup,

Please help me to understand the difference between TROIZ/TROLZ tables against V_TROLZ00, V_TROLZ01 and V_TROLZ02 tables. 

V_TROLZ00, V_TROLZ01 and V_TROLZ02 are not tables, they are views.  You can see the structure of these views by displaying them in SE11.

 I am preparing a Route Determination conversion Functional Spec. I am not sure which tables/fields to be mentioned for mapping. The client needs the route determination data to be loaded for Order and Delivery.

I generally do not include tables in functional specs for configuration.  I would include a brief description of the business requirement, a brief high level description of the reasoning and logic behind the selected solution.  I also might include the configuration path, and the config transactions (if they exist).  If the project management permits combining Functional and Technical specs, I might also include the actual entries to be made.

Config transactions you may need to include in your spec (most solutions don't need all of these) are OVR1, OVL7, OVSY, OVS8, 0VRF, OVLO, and OVLR.

Best Regards,

DB49

[former_member505946 · Accepted solution]

Thanks for your answer DB49,

Our client insists on mentioning the tables and fields along with the data load template. The conversion  is expected to update the entries in 0VRF transaction only. I figured out below fields and tables/views.

Route Determination Entry

Cdep, DepZ, DstCntry, RecZ          >>     V_TROLZ00

Further combinations Entry

ShipPnt                                         >>     LIKP

Cntry Dep, DepZ                            >>    TROIZ

Custr, DestCtry, RecZ                    >>    TROIZ

and fields from V_TROIZ01 and V_TROIZ02 for Sales order and Delivery.

Do you think these are correct?

Thanks,

Anup

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Anup,

Do you think these are correct?

I guess you are talking about the format(s) that your client requires you to place in your Functional specification.

"Correct" (when speaking about formats) is between you, your boss, and the client.  Every client is different.  I am not competent to determine what formats your client will accept as "correct".

I have already gave you my opinion of what I think the "correct" format is.  Which does not include tables/views.  Go to your boss/client with a draft copy of your specification, and ask THEM if your proposal is "correct".

Best Regards,

DB49

[former_member505946 · Accepted solution]

DB49,

Not the format, but the tables/fields that I selected, especially for "Further combinations" . Do you think this also needs to be included? I guess "Further combinations" is additional criteria to determine route.

It has LIKP table which I think cannot be used as we are updating only route determination and not deliveries (may be I should raise this as a new discussion).

Thanks for your help.

Anup

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Anup,

Not the format, but the tables/fields that I selected, especially for "Further combinations" . Do you think this also needs to be included? 

I already told you.  I don't think tables should be included at all.  So, now, such a decision should be taken by either your boss or your client.

LIKP is a transactional data table, not a configuration table.  It normally would have very little to do with creating a configuration specification.  Normally, the Configuration tables you refer to for Shipping Points would be TVST and a few related tables.  See transaction OVXD

I am sensing that you have never done this before.  I strongly recommend that you speak to your supervisor in this matter.  Using SCN as a resource to help you guess what is needed is a poor substitute for a supervisor who knows exactly what he wants from you.

Thus concludes my comments for this thread.

Best Regards & Good Luck,

DB49

[former_member505946 · Accepted solution]

DB, you are right..Thanks for your help...