Need BAPI for PO create with respect to contract

[Former Member]

Hi All,

I have requirement to create a PO with respect to contract . I was unable to find the right BAPI for same. Please let me know if there any BAPI or FM available for the same.

Thanks & Regards,

Praveen.

[Former Member]

Hi All,

I have requirement to create a PO with respect to contract . I was unable to find the right BAPI for same. Please let me know if there any BAPI or FM available for the same.

Thanks & Regards,

Praveen.

[gaursri]

Hi GB,

BAPI PO CREATE1 is the BAPI to create purchase order.

Have a best day ahead.

[Former Member]

Hi All.

I was able to create PO with respect to contract using the bapi 'BAPI_PO_CREATE1'.

CALL FUNCTION 'BAPI_PO_CREATE1'

EXPORTING

poheader = x_poheader

poheaderx = x_poheaderx

IMPORTING

EXPPURCHASEORDER = v_purchaseorder

TABLES

return = i_return

poitem = i_poitem

poitemx = i_poitemx

poschedule = i_poschedule

poschedulex = i_poschedulex

poaccount = i_poaccount

Thanks for your answers.

Regards,

Praveen

[h_frye]

Hi Praveen,

I know it's been a while since you've solved your issue, but I'm hoping you have a good memory!  I also am trying to use BAPI_PO_CREATE1 to create a PO with reference to a contract document.  To make sure you and I are talking about the same thing when I mention 'Contract document', I am referring to the contract document field in the PO header that shows on the "Contract Data" tab.  I want to create the PO with a contract document specified, so that the contract details will show on the PO PDF instead of the standard terms and conditions.

I am currently passing all of the structures you have listed above, plus a few additional ones.  None of these appear to have a field(s) to pass the contract document number.  Where did you specify the contract document number?

Thanks for the help!

[h_frye]

It looks as if I'll have to use the EXTENSIONIN structure.  One of the BAPI table extensions, BAPI_TE_MEPOHEADER, already has a field added for contract document DOKNR.  I am assuming a previous developer extended this structure to add the field.

Thanks for the consideration.