cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Read only

Why is condition requirement code sometimes modification?

pokrakam
Active Contributor
0 Likes
1,552

When creating custom requirements for conditions (Pricing, output, etc.), the system creates an editable include in SAP's namespace with the condition number in it's name, e.g. RV61B999 for requirement 999. Done it a few times in the past without a problem.

But I was surpised to discover that this system asked for a modification key to edit the code for a custom requirement; and even more surprised to find that this varies from one requirement to the next. Most odd.

So we have some that have the modification stamp, like:

FORM KOBED_923.
*{   INSERT         DEVK123456

Yet others are regular editable includes:

*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
*       FORM KOBED_919                                                *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
*       ........                                                      *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
FORM kobed_919.

Given that I've found alternating styles looking at conditions created over several years, this is not something that changed in a particular version of SAP. Nor can I find any obvious differences in the configuration.

So my question: Why are some conditions treated as modifications and others aren't?

For what it's worth, the particular ones we're currently working with are output conditions.

View Entire Topic
hohoman
Active Participant
0 Likes

Hello,

Object keys are requested for all programs within the SAP Namespace and therefore even customer defined forms are generated into a R... Source the system requests a key.

So it is not a modifcation ... SAP never changed the coding which makes the difference between Modification or not.

Regards

Holger

pokrakam
Active Contributor
0 Likes

Hi Holger,

Corrent, you need a key to create the requirement, and from past experience you can then go and edit it as regular code. This is the case in my second example above and as I've done it at other sites.

But here some of the code is treated as a modification, requiring an additional key (my first example). I agree with you it shouldn't be a modification, but sometimes it decides so, even on a brand new condition. This is the scenario I'm puzzled about.

Regards,

Mike