Skip to Content

SAP is not validating to release contract (ME35K) in Business workplace

Hello colleagues! I hope everything goes well or at least goes!

We have a gap here that we don't know how to interpret it. We have done the analysis, both from Basis and programming.

It is about a configuration for the substitute process (SBWP) for the release of orders and purchase contracts.

Just comment that business did not want the user has the authorizations for these transactions, they want to transfer "automatically" the authorizations during the established substitute period. We made them understand that the substitute (passive) user must have the authorization, in addition to the role of the release code. Including the tcodes they will have authorization (we proposed them to restrict it in the role assigned). But they don´t like this solution. Only want to transfer the authorization in the period (we can manage this, but not this below).

The fact is that look what happened to us:

Scenarios:

- ME35K is only blocked by the SESSION MANAGER (Direct Access to the Transaction) but not for SWBP. The user in his session manager does not have access to the me35K, (when he tries to enter he gets the message of the lack of authorization system) but if he receives a notification as a substitute in his workplace: he can access the ME35K and release!

- ME29N is blocked for both SESSION MANAGER (Direct Access to the Transaction) and SWBPàThe user does not have access to ME29N in his session manager, but if a notification arrives at his workplace: he cannot access. Here, the notification seems to be doing well.

What happens? That the user wants the same for the me29n. That you cannot access normally, only when the notification arrives, which we cannot do.

We have analyzed but we do not reach anything clear.

Please help!

Thank you very much in advance.

Add a comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

Related questions

3 Answers

  • Best Answer
    Posted on Oct 14, 2019 at 09:39 AM

    Hi

    Are you using the standard workflow ? which one ?

    I have checked and the method single release is calling the transaction ME35K

    whereas the same method on BUS2012 is calling the FM 'ME_RELEASE_PURCHASE_DOCUMENT'

    but the authority check is done inside this FM so I guess your user can access ME29N directly for the same PO.

    For me this is a normal way of working, your substitute shall have the necessary authorisation.

    If you really want something else, you should build your own worklfow and run make a decision task that will release the PO/contract in the background with WF-BATCH as user.

    then whoever receives the work item will be able to release the document.

    Cheers

    Stephane

    Add a comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • Hello, Sorry for taking a while to respond, but we wanted to be sure of the solution and we already have it in integration test.

      I wanted to thank you for your help as we have resolved our issue by following the steps you have indicated. The truth is that our client has been very satisfied, we kill two birds with one stone. So roughly, we have recreated the same behavior for purchase orders.

      Many thanks.

  • Posted on Oct 15, 2019 at 01:26 PM

    Hi Miguel,

    As Stéphane said, if you fulfill this requirement additional custom workflow needs to be created. Note that when you go the background-task route with WF-BATCH/SAP_WFRT that you'll loose information in the change docs. You can't see from header changes who approved/rejected the PO you have to delve into the workflow log to see who did it.

    Also, you might have to create additional reporting to conform to the auditor's wishes.

    Alternatively you could find a badi in those transactions and do your custom authorization there.

    Kind regards, Rob Dielemans

    Add a comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Posted on Oct 16, 2019 at 11:59 AM

    Hello Rob,

    We have created a copy of standard workflow.

    I have created a flow with substitutes and I can see at header level who the approver is, in this case, our substitute. It is ok.

    I don´t get you about the report for audit purposes.

    Thank you for your answer!

    Miguel G.

    Add a comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

Before answering

You should only submit an answer when you are proposing a solution to the poster's problem. If you want the poster to clarify the question or provide more information, please leave a comment instead, requesting additional details. When answering, please include specifics, such as step-by-step instructions, context for the solution, and links to useful resources. Also, please make sure that you answer complies with our Rules of Engagement.
You must be Logged in to submit an answer.

Up to 10 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 1.0 MB each and 10.5 MB total.