The calculation type of Condition Type error

[Former Member]

Hi guys,

I met a problem with Condition Type.

I defined a ZAAA condition type in SPRO and set its calculation type to "Quantity". But strangely, when I created a new order in CRM, the ZAAA condition type would be displayed as percentage type in the order. I had to append a new row named ZAAA in the Conditions, and only then ZAAA condition would be displayed as u201CQuantity" correctly. And the former "Percentage" ZAAA condition type would be inactive automatically.

Do you know why this happen and how to correct?

Thanks a lot!

Best Regards,

Adrian

Edited by: Adrian Hu on Oct 27, 2011 11:20 AM

[vanessa_donegan · Accepted solution]

Hi Adrian,

Are conditions determined from condition records? If so it could be that condition record foy the condition type were maintained before the calculation type was maintained or changed - then the old cal type will be used. Activate the pricing trace to get more information on the table etc.

Also make sure to apply the latest patch level as per note 880749.

I hope this helps.

Kind regards,

Vanessa

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Dear Vanessa,

Thanks a lot for your reply.

By your suggestion, do you mean the reason is because the accessing sequence find a condition record which has been maintained differently? But I just checked the ZAAA condition type, and there is no accessing sequence defined for it. I am not sure if I understand your meaning properly..

BTW, how to do a pricing trace? Could you please give me more details?

Thanks a lot!

Best Regards,

Adrian

[vanessa_donegan · Accepted solution]

Hi Adrian,

If this is a manual condition then the recommendations I gave dont really apply since you are not determining the condition from condition records.

For pricing trace notes 1520446, 521908 have details - the parameter PRC_TRACE needs to be set for the user. Again this is more for condition determination analysis.

Hope this is the info your required.

Kind regards,

Vanessa

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Vanessa,

The problem was finally identified due to inconsistent transport updates in between the T and P systems. After confirming all the change requests synchronized.

Thanks a lot for your help!

Best Regards,

Adrian