cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Quota Overview Showing 0 balance and incorrect past Balances

former_member443899
Participant
0 Kudos

Recently we've run time eval to create quota balances for April 2013 to allow people to use the Leave Request application to plan their vacation for this year.  There was no problem last year, but this year there are 2 issues.

First, all future balances are showing 0 hours. 

Second, change the key date to 2014.01.01 it shows 2012-2013 quota balances.  Then if you change the key date to 2010.01.01 it shows negative remaining quotas.  This does not match IT2006 Quota Balances.

I saw a previous posting from 2011 that suggested using note 1596290 fixed a similar issue. We noticed there was a recent change due to support packs.  Could note 1668196 be causing this issue?  Are there any newer notes that impact the Quota Overview application? Is this a known issue?


The system does allow the vacation request to be submitted (which looks like it gets the right balance because we do not allow negative balances), but the quota overview is showing as negative.  There are a few more tests I need to run, but any ideas or suggestions would be great.

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

siddharthrajora
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

you need to have these notes

1701664

1674847

Note that :

The negative remaining is all caused by the flag
check includes unposted requests in table:V_PTARQ_TPROCESS.

When you select "check includes unposted requests", XSS system makes a
simulation in deduction. It's just a simulation deduction, rather
than real deduction in backend system.

Let me share following information.

1. The Entitlement number is a real actual number from table PA2006.

2. As you may know, SAP designed "post" action between R/3 and ESS/MSS
Before post, R/3 database table will not be changed (PA2001/2002).
The remainder number in time account is not real actual number.
It is a calculated record potentially only in portal.
Therefore, you find the different situation in ESS time account and
infotype 2001/2002 and 2006. And some negative remaining are in ESS,
which is different from backend R/3 system.

there is another note 1332403 which you cant see as its restricted,

Symptom is

In the Time Accounts application when there are multiple records of same

quota type, leave request records are in-correctly deducted and negative

deduction is displayed.

Other terms

if you have this error then please raise an oss to get this note

what is the mod you have set as below?

Please read through the documentation of the Function Module
HR_GET_QUOTA_DATA to select the proper mode. You can modify the
mode in the BADI according to your business requirements.
The relevant details are as follows:

BADI: PT_ABS_REQ
Class: CL_PT_ARQ_TIMEACCOUNTS
Method: GET_REMAINING_QUOTA_FOR_PERNR

METHOD if_ex_pt_abs_req~get_mod_and_qtype.

  ex_mod   = 'B'.      // Here you can change Mod

ENDMETHOD.

This is the method of determining which data should be read.

The options are as follows:

   Data is read from the cluster

   Data is read from the infotype record

   Data is read from a simulated time evaluation run

You can use parameter MOD to determine which data you want to

base the calculation on.

By default we are populating it as 'B'. While this standard setting

works for most of our customers it might be insufficient for others.

You can change the way the function module HR_GET_QUOTA_DATA is called

by using the BAdI customer exit method

GET_MOD_AND_QTYPE (class CL_PT_ARQ_REQ_EXIT)

former_member443899
Participant
0 Kudos

It appears we have note 1701664 with our support packs, the 2nd just says to run the quota correction report but since IT2006 was correct this would do nothing, and looking at the last suggestion.

What we did find through testing if you look at the code screenshot.  It shows that 1596290 fixed the problem, but was undone by 1668196 which broke the code again.

So in dev we moded the code to match 1596290 which fixed the problem.  Does 1701664 do something similar?

I believe we found the problem, but have no idea why note 1668196 would have reverted the code.

Answers (0)