Application Development Discussions
Join the discussions or start your own on all things application development, including tools and APIs, programming models, and keeping your skills sharp.
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

XK05, FK05, MK05 - anyway to separate block/unblock?

Former Member
0 Kudos

Does anyone know if there is a way to separate the block and unblock activities for transactions XK05, FK05, MK05, etc.? I believe they are controlled by auth objects F_LFA1_* and ACTVT 05 (Lock). I have a request that a role be able to block a vendor, but not unblock. Is this possible?

Thanks.

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi William,

I am not sure about this one, but for many objects (b)lock and un(b)lock are the same activity. It ('05') is often a "toggle-switch". The vendor / user can generally (b)lock themselves anyway...

Take a look through the objects documentation in SU21 to see whether there is an authorization control possibility. I suspect not.

You might also want to see whether there is a customizing option for this. A release strategy for the block / unblock (sensitive fields) might be easier? I am not logged on, but you can check it in SPRO customizing.

From a procedural point of view, I would suspect that the authorization required to block a vendor would require at least the same authority to unblock (and approve) the vendor.

If you explain why you have this requirement then it would help.

How big is your accounts payable department?

Out of curiosity: Are you getting an SOD (Segregation of Duties) warning for this from some rule set in a tool which you bought or adopted? Based on which rule (the value in the rule) did it invent this activity conflict?

Cheers,

Julius

2 REPLIES 2

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi William,

I am not sure about this one, but for many objects (b)lock and un(b)lock are the same activity. It ('05') is often a "toggle-switch". The vendor / user can generally (b)lock themselves anyway...

Take a look through the objects documentation in SU21 to see whether there is an authorization control possibility. I suspect not.

You might also want to see whether there is a customizing option for this. A release strategy for the block / unblock (sensitive fields) might be easier? I am not logged on, but you can check it in SPRO customizing.

From a procedural point of view, I would suspect that the authorization required to block a vendor would require at least the same authority to unblock (and approve) the vendor.

If you explain why you have this requirement then it would help.

How big is your accounts payable department?

Out of curiosity: Are you getting an SOD (Segregation of Duties) warning for this from some rule set in a tool which you bought or adopted? Based on which rule (the value in the rule) did it invent this activity conflict?

Cheers,

Julius

0 Kudos

Thank you for your input, Julius.

I assumed as much, but it's good to have someone to agree with.