cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

RERAIV transaction

Former Member
0 Kudos

Good day!

Just want to inquire if anyone has encountered a possible bug in this transaction for Flexible RE in ECC 6.

In the selection parameter of this transaction, a parameter to filter FI documents coming from a specific posting transaction (e.g. REPP,REOP, etc ) is provided - Process. However upon simulation, it seems like this parameter is not working since all other FI documents not generated from said processes were included in the invoice run. I have several questions here:

1. Documents generated from RERAPP carries the identification (or debit position ID) indicated in the cashflow into the reference field of the document header (eg. xxxxxxxxREPP). Will this be the main validation of RERAIV for the Process parameter?

2. For selection parameter "Only FI documents", is there a further qualification for document types being considered in the invoice run?

3. For resulting open items coming from residual payments, will this be included as well on the next invoice run together with future due items?

Hope someone could enlighten me on this.

Thanks,

Ester

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

yudittzruya
Participant
0 Kudos

Hi Ester,

indeed the invoice select only FI documents items that orgin from RE-FX posting activities and have the required identification (you have the reference transaction + Tcode in the Header and other fields in the line item).

Regarding the "Only FI Documents" - this refer to what kind of items you want to include in the invoice : only the ones that were posted (FI Doc.) , only the planned items from the contract cash flow (not yet posted) or both

If you have items that you already included in past invoice but wasn't cleared you could print a copy of the old invoice or select the "Already Invoice" check-box

Hope this helps

Yudit

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Yudit!

Thanks so much for the inputs..

Regards,

Ester

Former Member
0 Kudos

BTW, we are trying out an OSS note to possibly correct some inconsistencies in this transaction.

Thanks.

Answers (0)