2023 Nov 22 3:54 PM
Hi all,
I have a Z program that makes a call to the VA23 (Display Quotation) transaction. Is there any way to disable the edit option that calls to VA22?
Thanks in advance,
Luis Rodriguez
2023 Nov 29 10:23 PM
I'm assuming you're using CALL TRANSACTION. It's not possible with a standard transaction. You could create a custom transaction using a variant with any pieces hidden and call that instead.
But I would question the value of doing this because authorizations already determine whether a user can have access to edit a document. I think the menu is supposed to be hidden if a user has no access (it doesn't happen consistently though). But if they do have authorization to edit, then what exactly would you solve if you just hide it when transaction is called from a custom report? What would prevent the users from just opening VA22 in another session?
2023 Nov 29 10:23 PM
I'm assuming you're using CALL TRANSACTION. It's not possible with a standard transaction. You could create a custom transaction using a variant with any pieces hidden and call that instead.
But I would question the value of doing this because authorizations already determine whether a user can have access to edit a document. I think the menu is supposed to be hidden if a user has no access (it doesn't happen consistently though). But if they do have authorization to edit, then what exactly would you solve if you just hide it when transaction is called from a custom report? What would prevent the users from just opening VA22 in another session?
2023 Nov 30 1:28 PM
Jelena,
Thanks for your post. In this particular case, the user calls a custom (Z) transaction that performs some steps before and after the CALL and, depending on certain conditions, calls either the VA22 or the VA23. What I would like to avoid is that the user calls back VA22 by mistake.
The idea of a custom transaction with a variant looks interesting. Also, it's possible that I'm overstating the problem and the users are more conscientious that I'm giving them credit for 🙂
Thanks again,
Luis