Object F_BKPF_BUP with tx F110

[former_member280251]

The authorization group (object F_BKPF_BUP) at line item level are not being checked when we

execute tx F110, however it is working at the header level. Anybody knows if this object only works at the header level with tx F110?

Thanks,

Cecilia.

[premraj_furtado]

HI,

We have just implemented this Note in our system. Further my query is as follows...

We as a practice, close AP period first for "X" group of users by simply changing the value. Also we use authorisation group for other users to allow them to put the transactions.

But we are simply changing the value of "K" & not "+". Due to this the user "X" are able to post the transaction in closed period.

With this note implementation, do i need to use the same authorisation group for "K" & "+" simulteniously.

Pl Confirm.

Thanks in Advance.

Sachin

[Former Member]

Hi,

The object F_BKPF_BUP is for document header only, hence its not working at item level.

Ramanand

[former_member280251]

Ramanand,

Thanks for your reply. If you implement the note 891505, the object F_BKPF_BUP works at line item level, too.

Does not it apply to the tx F110? The note does not mencion anythig about.

Thanks for your help,

Cecilia.

[Former Member]

Hi,

The Note 891505 - OB52: Authorization group at document header level only is applicable only for checking of the authorization group in context of the posting period variant maintained in OB52. For posting period variant, the open/close posting periods are maintained at header level i.e. "+" and at line item level i.e. "D", "S", "M", "K", "A" (Customer, G/L, Material, Vendor, Asset).

This note refers to that item level authorization check.

Ramanand

[former_member280251]

Hi Ramanand,

Thanks for your help, but I don't understand your anwser.

We always work with the object F_BKPF_BUP at the header level and at the line item level (A,D,K,S,M) when we use ts FB01 or other similar (F-43,FB60,etc), and the object is always checked at the two levels.

The problem is that when we run ts F110, the object is only checked at the header level. Why is it checked with FB01 at the two levels and with ts F110 only at the header level?

Thanks for your help,

Cecilia.

[Former Member]

Can I please add to Celia's request?

I need more information about authorisation objects surrounding tx F110 (program SAPF110V).

It would be useful if some users of F110 could be restricted from

deleting the payment run.Even a strong warning message would be an improvement.

Is there a security solution to this request using authorisation objects?

Thank you in advance for any further information on this subject.