Updating equipment via BI or GR for return delivery leads to deletions in IHPA

[Matthias038]

--------- START OF SOLUTION ------------

Hi,

sometimes it is good to reset the mind and propose you are at the very beginning :-). After this long discussion with SAP and getting into touch of the coding, function modules, Badis, BAPIs etc. I found an easy solution just now.

The needed scenario is:

- copy partner "owner" from the equipment to maintenance item when it is scheduled

- keep the partner "owner" when the equipment is serialized material used in outbound and return delivery w/o deleting the owner at GR.

The solution is:

- keep the partner procedure for calibration order (f.e. PM = SAP standard),

- copy the partner procedure to Z.... (Transaction VOP2) and assign it to your equipment category (transaction OIEV)

in the customizing "copy partner" (customizing menu OLI0_V_TPAER_PM)

- keep the indicator set for the procedure assigned to the order type

- do not set the indicator for the procedure assigned to the equipment

Result is:

- the partner function of the equipment master will not be deleted in the return scenario

- the partner will be copied to the PM-order type used in the maintenance scenario.

Quite easy, actually and I should have seen that earlier, but I am also wondering, why SAP didn't came up with this way of working.

Anyway. Issue solved with customizing.

Have a nice 2023, stay safe.

Matthias

--------- END OF SOLUTION ------------

--- start of the final update on 27-12-2022 ---

Here is the latest message from SAP:

Dear Matthias,
This is long established behaviour and is widely used. I don't see scope to change it. The 'Copy partner' is fairly straight forward - it can fill the partner but will remove the partner from equipment at GR. The only choice is to switch off the flag and then use some other means to fill the partner on the equipment.

and here is - in parts - what I wrote back also to summarize the topic:

(...) Having someone responsible for an equipment SAP is not capable of covering both the delivery and return of a tool to an onsite job and the inhouse calibration of the same. We have to decide for one of the scenarios to be automated.
And, following your answer, there seems to be no exit, BADI or similar, because - I guess - otherwise you would mentioned that to me. (...)

I will check if I can maybe find another way in the process, but for now: that's it - I can't believe it - actually.

Thanks for reading.

Matthias

--- END of the final update on 27-12-2022 ---

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

--- start of update --- 19-12-2022 --- SAP came back to me

here is what they recommend:

"I understand you are querying the removal of partner from equipment at GR. I would like to confirm the system behaviour that you describe is intended by SAP. Technically this happens for all movement types that have assigned operation:

PMS1 'Goods receipts'
PMS7 'Return to stock'
PMT5 'Return from customer consignment'
PMT7 'Return from customer return packg'

As you have identified the process is performed in function module PM_PARTNERCOPY_FILL_XIHPA

This is done only for partner functions that are either set as mandatory in the equipment's partner determination procedure or for partner functions that have the flag 'Copy Partner' set.

See also note 734348. "

I asked some questions back and as of now this is not a solution for me - we will see.

As of now, I just wanted to share the out come with you.

Matthias

--- end of update 19-12-2022 ---

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---- start of update --- 09-11-2022

I created an OSS message, let's see their response.

---- end of update --- 09-11-2022

Hi,

I am observing something strange where I can't get the understanding.

---- start of update --- 01-11-2022

we are coming closer now :-). The root cause seemed to be related to the customizing setting in the partner function of the equipment category. V_TPAER_PM-PCOPY shows the indicator for the related partner function is on.

This will make sure that partners are copied from equipment to notification / order when the equipment is used, here it is calibration order for a tool. So, the setting is fine.

Coming back to the erroneous steps in the return we see that this indicator V_TPAER_PM-PCOPY = "X" leads to the deletion. We also made the countercheck, by removing V_TPAER_PM-PCOPY. We posted an example and the partner function was not deleted by posting the goods receipt for the return order - sounds like a solution, isn't it...

Now this is a competing set up for me, because the usual case that we deliver an equipment using serial number and activating the needed business transaction for the serial number in both outbound and inbound should be supported.

SAP OSS is not offering any note for this field.

Any hint how to overcome this mismatch, w/o bigger development is highly appreciated.

Thank you

Matthias

---- end of update --- 01-11-2022

____________________________________________________________________________________

--- start of update --- 24-10-2022

we found another case with similar issue.

- we are returning the non-valuated tools using return order with reference to the original advanced shipment order we once sent the tools to the onsite job.

- creating the return delivery is no issue. when serial number is assigned to the delivery, the system status is then "ECUS ESTO EDEL".

- the final step is posting the GR for the return delivery.... guess what, this step is deleting the partner function.

As of now I don't even know if this is SAP standard bug, or if it caused by our own coding. To get further I would need to know what user-exit / function modul / BAPI / enhancement spot / Badi would be able to be used in the GR step and having access to equipment data. I tried to use the analysis report for these given by Peter Atkin (https://answers.sap.com/questions/1275977/user-exitbadibte-search.html?childToView=13121409) but that list for IE02 gets huge.

--- end of update --- 24-10-2022

I am doing LSMW using recording of IE02 to change some informational data like model number, manufacturer, location and room. The BI works fine and the updates are okay. When I now do the double check for documentation I find in the changes, there are additional lines for changes in IHPA. When I then check if changes have happened to partners really in IHPA, the [update, 23rd Aug.2022]: the deletion indicator is set, but only when there is/was just one partner assigned.

The changes showing up for IHPA are annoying because I need to give explanations for the audit. The partner fields are not even included in the recording and no data are transferred in the LSMW.

So I am looking for a convincing idea to either explain the system behavior or (better) to make sure this is not happening.

Any idea is welcome.

Thanks in advance

Matthias

short update. 22nd aug.2022:

I also needed to set some of the equipments to system status "ECUS" by LSMW. This has the same kind of entry in CDHDR. So it seems to be connected to changing the equipment's system status. Still strange, but maybe a little hint.