Conflict with Absence on ESS

[VWITS01]

Hi SAP Gurus,

I have got an issue of Absence conflict on ESS portal - I have already checked on SCN portal for related thread however I have still have some query.

Your kind support would be highly appreciated.

User is trying to maintain leave request on ESS portal for Paid holiday on 13.03.2013 but she is getting an error "conflict with Absence Maternity leave /2001 from 13.10.2011 to 02.09.2011.

I checked ECC system in infotype 2001 , there is an record for Maternity leave for mentioned dates and I tried creating leave request on ESS , there is no error as such But conflict error is popping up for ESS portal.

I have already checked PTARQ database, all leave requests - strange , there is no leave request data for Maternity leave from 13.10.2011 to 02.09.2011 but I could see there are so many Paid Leaves , data are there with SENT status.

Kindly assist me with that.

Regards

Priya

[siddharthrajora · Accepted solution]

check the note 1288919    5    Collision with another time entry

follow the steps below from the note ie below

Solution

If you request an absence for any day the system is checking ALL open
requests for this pernr. So if there is any open request which is
creating a collision you will get this error.
Leave request is based on Time managers Workplace Functionality
to ensure that the leave request remains consistent and error free all
the past errors are reported to the employee when he applies leave
so that it can be rectified.

Please check if the
rule group the option "Check Includes Unposted Requests" is checked. So
it implies :

*************************************************************
Specifies the data that is included in the plausibility checks for a
requested absence. The plausibility checks include collision checks and
a check for sufficient remaining leave, for example.

Use
If you select this field, the system also checks new requests that are
still open, change requests, and cancellations that have not yet been
stored in the infotypes and have the following status in the document
database:
SENT
APPROVED
************************************************************
To solve the problem:

Confirm which absence is valid one. Leave request database or IT2001.
Depending on that, you can delete IT2001 records because later the
RPTARQPOST report again posts them correctly.
                                                                 Page 2

You can use the RPTARQDBDEL report to delete the pending leave
request too.
Caution: Please be extremely careful while
using the report, please read the reports documentation

PS : Try to run RPTARQDBVIEW for up to today and you ll
see  existing records in sent status or approved and compare
it with the It2001 for the pernr,

Ensure note 1127249 is applied.

[VWITS01 · Accepted solution]

Thanks alot Siddharth for sharing information on my issue - That's really very helpful.

I have one query here - what if maternity leave request for the time span it is showing in Collision is not present in Database RPTARQDBVIEW ? But maternity absence is there in IT 2001.Do we need to delete all pending leave requests here ?

Do we need to delete all pending leave requests every time when we get collision issue ?

It is advisable to make change in Rule group - rule group the option "Check Includes Unposted Requests" is checked - can we unchecked it ??

Need your expert advise on it,

Thanks & regards

Priya.

[siddharthrajora · Accepted solution]

It is advisable to make change in Rule group - rule group the option "Check Includes Unposted Requests" is checked - can we unchecked it ?? NO don't do this option

In your error message, you ll always get the dates mentioned, so you need to look in rptarqdbview for the conflicting absences, there ll be always available.

IT2001 only has posted ones, so better check in above report which might be in sent or approved status

Yeah the deletion is always needs to be done, or reject the sent leave as it collides with existing one, manager will be presented with the error or warning message and they can take appropriate step

You can never have conflicting absence on same time!

[VWITS01 · Accepted solution]

Thanks Siddharth,

I could the functionality you shared with me - Really helpful.

But I am stuck with some strange issue here - As we know that 2001 would be updated with POSTED leave requests on ESS portal but what I could see in RPTARQDBVIEW database , there is not a single leave request which is in POSTED still EE has got her 2001 records with plenty of Paid leave.

I could confirm again after rechecking in database that there is no leave request is there in SENT status for the conflict date of 13.10.2011 to 02.09.2011.

Something very strange.

Yes, we do not have S note 1288919 in our system.

Kindly advise me what best to be done to fix my ESS issue please.

Thanks & regards

Priya

[VWITS01 · Accepted solution]

Further,

I checked with BASIS team , though we do not have SAP note 1288919 , this note can not be implemented.

Also 1127249 note's manual correction is there in system - still we are facing this issue.

Please assist me with your expert advise.

Thanks & regards

Priya

[siddharthrajora · Accepted solution]

1288919 cant be implemented its a how to note and I already attached the note description

So there is no record of

13.10.2011 to 02.09.2011. in IT2001 for this user or any other status record in rptarqdbview?

can you check again?

or check it0088 for maternity absence?

[VWITS01 · Accepted solution]

Hi Siddharth -- In IT 2001 , there is record for maternity leave however no leave request in rptarqdbview for 13.10.2011 to 02.09.2012 and we have record for the same in infotype 0088.

If this S note can not be implemented , what else can be done.

Kindly assist.

Regards

Priya

[siddharthrajora · Accepted solution]

1288919 cant be implemented, its tell you steps on how to solve this issue

CONSULTING NOTE

In your case you need to remove conflicting absence, that's it, above steps will tell you how to do it.

13.10.2011 to 02.09.2012 >> You need to find a record in IT2002 or 2001 or above report rptardbview

[VWITS01 · Accepted solution]

Thanks Siddharth,

AS I mentioned , this leave from 13.10.2011 to 02.09.2012 does not exist in report rptardbview.

It is only present in Infotype 2001 and 0088.

I am unable to delete any conflict absence , as there is no conflict being found my me in rptardbview.

I am unable to fix this issue

Priya

[siddharthrajora · Accepted solution]

OH! but this absence expanses for a year! You can check for any day between 13.10.2011 to 02.09.2012, ie it can be on 01092012, or 15102011, any day between this range

and that can create a conflict, there should be no two full day or partial day absences at same day or time, Please verify it correctly

Check in 2002 too??

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Siddharth,

We are getting the same error "conflict with absences ....." when the manager approves leave requests.  We have situations that an employee submits several leave requests for different leave types and for different dates.  When the manager logs in and approves them one by one they seem to go through but at a certain point in time (we guess when the background job has run)  the Conflict with absences errors appear for the previous approvals all at once. 

In reality there is no conflict because the requests are for different types of leave and at different times and dates.  You mentioned about all open request for a particular pernr.  Would that cause the error message? Any idea if we are doing something wrong and how can we resolve it ?

Thanks

Pascal

[siddharthrajora · Accepted solution]

can you really confirm there are no conflicting absences in RPTARQDBVIEW with anything on It2001 for a particular pernr?

We usually give the dates on which collision is occurring, can you check on those dates ?

OR paste your error etc

You can have any open requests unless and until they don't collide with each other ! like same dates etc

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Siddharth,

You will see from the error messages themselves that there is no conflict in the leave types or dates or times.  These requests are all for one employee.  The manager has approved them one after another in quick succession.

If the manager then logs out and logs on again after say 10 minutes or so then the messages seem to have dissapeared and the leaves are posted to IT 2001.  The RPTARQDBVIEW also shows that they have been posted correctly.    In the end everything seems to be OK.  It just the error messages that are confusing to the managers. and we want to know if there is a way to avoid them.

Thanks

Pascal

[siddharthrajora · Accepted solution]

have you checked this note

please apply the pilot note 1733095, to get this note, Please raise an oss message and mention yoru symton, you wont be able to see this note, unless SAP approves, This will solve your error

Just also confirm below

1580055 - ESS Leave Request Application (LEA): Collision on a
different date        so the employee doesn't have a record on 11 sept in It2001 for 0840?

check note 1756655

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Siddharth,

To your question "so the employee doesn't have a record on 11 sept in It2001 for 0840?"

Answer: - IT 2001 has tha record for the above leave.  

As I said before, the error appears on the Manager's approval screen at the time when he is approving leave requests.  When he logs out and in again on the next time the errors are no longer there and the leave record has been approved and posted correctly to 2001.   The errors get cleared automatically.

Thanks, I will check the note 1733095 from SAP.

Pascal

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Siddharth,

Thank you for your advice.  I got the note 1733095 from SAP and it resolved the conflict error issue.

Pascal

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi,

For some reason, i cannot download the SAP Note 1756655, i am getting the error message "SAP Note 0001756655 does not exist".

Does this mean the SAP Notes has been revoked or system incompatibility?

Thank you in advance for your feedback.

Carla

[siddharthrajora · Accepted solution]

its a configuration note and not correction instructions one you need to read this note and follow the steps