Hello Team,
We have a requirement where GL number should be updated by second requester,
GL number being key field and it should be updated by requester2,
so requirement is requester1 will not provide GL number and this field should be invisible for him and requester2 field should be visible and updated by him.
can we make key field editable at second level of workflow process.
Regards
Ajay
Hello Ajay
GL number is required field and it is determined by the account group number range. To make it disable at workflow step level, you have to check - process modelling - Change request - configure properties for change request type. Select your CR type and then click on CR Step - 00. Here you may change the checks and enhancement points to Issue warning message instead of standard but it will affect rest of the fields.
But the best way is to reject the CR and create a new one with proper number..
Kiran
Thank Kiran for your response, we are working on greenfield MDG-F implementation on Hub mode and it will be External number range,
let me give few information about GL creation process design.
will have new Z field and requester1 will input 5 digit code(12345***) but actual GL number is 8 digit and based on this number other GL fields should be derived,
actual GL standard field should not be visible to requester but this field should be available to requester2 and he will fill SAP Standard GL number when workflow triggers to approval.
please provide your input to achieve this.
Regards
Ajay
Hello Gopal
You can create a Z UI (Similar to customer Lean form) with minimum information. Assign the form at step level. With this you can add a GL number and later on requestor 2 can update or add as required.
Kiran
We want to use the standard MDG-F UI for GL but only requirement is GL number should be editable at requester2.
as GL number being key field we are looking for options to make it editable.
When you say we want to use standard MDG-F, then this is not the standard way to update GL number. You can copy the standard UI for your requirement. Don't add any other field if it is really not required. Apart from this, I don't see any other solution.
Changing message type to warning is not the acceptable solution. This might work but its not the best practice.
Kiran
Kiran I got below document similar to your suggestion but if we make Z UI, SAP Wont support and future upgrade will it work?
https://www.sap.com/documents/2015/07/b672f8b1-557c-0010-82c7-eda71af511fa.html
Hello Gopal
SAP will surely support for standard issues and after upgrade there won't be any issue. Otherwise no one will go with custom DM and custom pages..
Kiran
Hi,
- In data model , Change the key assignment of the entity to key can be changed.
- Use field property BADI to control the visibility between different approval levels.
Thank you!
Regards,
Logan.D
LogaNathan, for MDG-F account enitity it is nto allowing us to change these settings as other dependent objects are assign for range.
is there any other way?otherthan ZUI
If Key change is not allowed in DM level, Then we cant even save the CR as it is a key field and cant change later also. I am not sure how custom ZUI help because if changes are not possible in DM level then the result remains the same. You may switch requestor process..Otherwise use mass processing CR then single processing..whereas req2 initiates by entering key fields and req1 fills rest of the details in the next level. Later you can redirect back to req 2 so he will review it.
Otherwise take a copy of data model and create new one and use it for account alone. Similiarily create custom UI..If your customer wants such approach then there is nothing wrong to go with custom. As per the modelling, I dont think you will be having other options.
Hey Kiran,
maybe you can work with CBA and replace the Feeder Class. Here in get_data() you can dependent on wf step f.e. 00 set visibility of the field as invisible ( 00 ). Check changing table ct_field_usage. I would set a dummy value for this and if step 02 is arrived set field prop as visible ( 02 ) and clear the content? Be careful you have to set flag EV_FIELD_USAGE_CHANGED as true, if you make some changes on ct_field_usage.
Is that a way for you?
BR,
Hasan