cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Source list (ME01) - system is not validating SA and line item number

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hello Experts,

We have strange scenario in source list (ME01) maintenance. Following is the one of the examples:

  1. In year 2013, user maintained an entry in source list with plant (ABCD) and material (A12345) combination having validity date as 01/01/2013 to 12/31/2099 having SA number 5512345678 and line item number ‘1520’ & checked ‘fixed source’ and maintained ‘2’ in MRP relevancy. The SA is related to Stock transport (plant to plant).
  2. In year 2015, for same material (A12345) and plant (ABCD) combination user changed the validity start date as 01/01/2015 to 12/31/2099 and retaining same SA number 5512345678, erroneously user entered different line item number ‘1550’ (instead of 1520) and system accepted without any errors. In reality SA line item number ‘1550’ has different material code.

Question is how can system accepts when SA & line item number is different. As I understand system always validates the SA number and its line item number for particular material and plant combination in source list maintenance. In our system I checked for user exits and we are not validating anything. Could anyone help in understanding root cause.

Thanks in advance.


Thanks,

Krish

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (2)

Answers (2)

former_member183424
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

System should through message " 06387 - Agreement item contains a different material "

What is your ECC and EHP release ?

Former Member
0 Kudos

We are on ECC 6.0 & EHP4.

Yes, when I entered different item number then it is throwing an error -

Agreement item contains a different material - Message no. 06387

But strangely when I just change the validity start date and enter different item number then there is no error.

Thanks,

Krish

JL23
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

why should there be an error? Validity of schedule agreement and validity of source list are 2 different things and serve 2 different purposes.

former_member183424
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

You are mixing these dates.. These dates are different. The date you are changing is valid for source list only.

It will never check the agreement date to validate.

Former Member
0 Kudos

Thanks Jurgen,

I am not expecting system to validate the validity of schedule agreement dates instead I was looking to validate schedule agreement number and line item number are correct.

As such I was trying to recreate the scenario by changing 2 things - 1) change validity start date and 2) change the schedule agreement line item number. By changing these 2 things I did not get any error and if I change only schedule agreement line item number then system throws an error - message no. 06387.

Thanks,

JL23
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

I still do not really understand what you want SAP to validate.

If you change the item number of a schedule agreement then SAP validates the correctness of the material as you want.

If you change the validity date then SAP does not check the correctness of the item since it cannot be incorrect, as it was checked when the agreement was added in your source list.

Former Member
0 Kudos

Thanks Jurgen.

We approached SAP and they identified the root cause and released the note:

2160284 - ME01:System does not validate the item number when making changes to the item number and v...


Regards,

Krish

JL23
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

thanks for the update, now I actually understand the issue

ravindra_devarapalli
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi,

Hope System will check only header segment . Hope in your case also may be system check only scheduling agreement no.

See below attachment

Former Member
0 Kudos

Thanks Ravi.

My doubt is if it validates at header level then why system throws error (item does not exist - message. 06011) when I dont change validity start date and change just line item number.

Just want to understand whether source list will always validates SA # and line item number OR at only specific instances ?

Thanks,

Krish