re-use successful idoc to generate new order number

[cathy_liang]

Hello experts,

Pls advise detail steps together with Tcodes. Thx.

Requirement: how to re-use successful idoc to generate new order number.

For example, an idoc#111 has generated sales order#1 successfully. For testing purpose, i want to re-use data in idoc#111 to generate new sales orders in the same client.

So I used WE19 to re-process idco#111 & got a new idoc#222. As idoc#222 indicated sales order#1, I changed it from #1 to #2 in idoc#222 & re-processed idoc#222 successfully via BD87. Idoc#222 shows the status 03.

When I display sales order#2, the system shows an error message below.

"SD document 2 is not in the database or has been archived. message no. V1302".

I have checked the order number & order#1 is the latest one. So i used #2.

Questions:

1. Anything i missed that casued the error message? How to solve it?

2. If my handling is wrong, pls guide me.

消息编辑者为：Cat L Now the idoc#222 status is 12. But sales order#2 still does not exist due to the same error. Pls help. Thx.

[cathy_liang]

Any update? Pls help.

[Jelena]

No idea what IDoc this is about, but I'll go with an assumption that this is an inbound ORDERS IDoc.

You cannot "re-use" the IDoc and you do not just "generate new order number". You can only create a new IDoc and it will, in turn, create new order (if all goes well). I have a feeling that you might be doing some steps blindly, without understanding what they actually mean.

If you have a succesfully processed IDoc then for testing purposes you can use WE19 to create a new IDoc as a copy of the existing one. Depending on your configuration, it'll either be processed immediately (which I recommend for testing) or you'll need to use BD87 to process the newly created IDoc.

The other message is likely just a consequence of this whole story. Obviously either the IDoc was not processed (you should have status 53 for the successfully processed inbound IDoc) or you got a wrong order # or there was an update termination. Or the order actually could've been simply deleted.

[cathy_liang]

Many thanks for your advice, Jelena.