Skip to Content
author's profile photo Former Member
Former Member

Differences in document and FAGLFLEXT currency HUF

Hi all,

In document posted in foreign currency HUF we see amount 46 663 HUF and in table FAGLFLEXT 466,63. As I understand it is caused by that HUF is not handled by decimals. Is this incorrect that we have differences? If so, how can this be corrected?

BR L

Add a comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

Assigned Tags

Related questions

2 Answers

  • Posted on Apr 26, 2012 at 03:00 PM

    Hi,

    Please, check note 1456278. I hope decimals of the currency were not touched (OY04 transaction).

    Regards,

    Eli

    Add a comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • Former Member Former Member

      Decimals are defined at client level and do not depend on tables.

      If any one has made any change in decimal places in customization it will disturb all docs posted in HUF, thus check other docs also which you have posted in HUF and check change logs of OY04

  • author's profile photo Former Member
    Former Member
    Posted on Apr 27, 2012 at 07:44 AM

    Hi all,

    Non has made any changes in OY04. The currency does appear in OY04 as in SAP standard as I understand due to that it should not have any decimals. I have checked different systems and it is the same in all, different in all documents in HUF and the table (both if FAGLFLEXT and GLT0). It is the same for KRW.

    I have searched for notes but cannot find anything regarding this.

    The problem were discovered by looking in FAGLFLEXT.

    BR L

    Add a comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • Former Member Former Member

      I had a similar issue with one of the custom report in which I had both local and global currency. The HUF when related to EUR ( through field CNAME in ALV) was showing1,00 and actually it was 100,00. When SE16 generates the ALV probably it links to wrong currency in your case ( my structure had correct relationships but still the field catalog had different relationship). So in short the cfieldname should be corrected again in ALV.

      While you cant do much about SE16 showing wrong values, you could still find a solution in OSS if any standard transaction/report shows the wrong values.


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.