Skip to Content

Guidelines for NF-e layout 3.10 SAP Notes installation

Hi Guys,

You might be facing some troubles while implementing the SAP Notes for Layout 3.10 so we from Product Support, with the help of Eduardo Rubia from CoE team, have created a document that can help you with that. We called it the ‘3.10 Painkiller’.

This document has an objective to provide different possibilities for you to adequate your company to the new requirement from the Brazilian Government. In it we tried to explain the scenarios so you can evaluate the best option for you. You will find the main notes/solutions that are required, tips and some tools to help.

Please check KBA 2056762 – Guidelines for NF-e layout 3.10 SAP Notes installation.

We hope that this information can help and you have a smoother transition.

In the next days we will be posting a new document with the main customizing and changes in the flow logic for ERP, GRC and PI for layout 3.10.



You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.
  • Hi Tiago!

    First of all, thanks for all this useful information. Now, we have two questions on the Guidelines in our project:

    1. Master Data: there are over 30 new fields being created in between Customer, Vendor and Material master and are only available for Releases 605 and above. Why is this? If SEFAZ needs this information SEFAZ does not care which release you are in, or if you even have SAP, they want their data and that’s it. SAP has not given a clear answer on this. Would you be able to clarify this, please?

    2. CT-e: there are 5 notes on CT-e called out as the must implement. What if one’s company does not use CT-e functionality?

    Your knowledge is much appreciated

    Thanks in advance

    Nicolás Posada

    • Hello Nicolás,

      1. As part of the SAP EhP release strategy the enhancements and new functionalities are delivered only to the newest versions.
          The new fields required by SEFAZ are all available through the BAdI methods for the releases lower than 605, so these releases are compliant with the legal requirement as well.

      2. The Ct-e notes MUST be implemented even if the company does not use CT-e. The ERP is an integrated solution and CT-e and NF-e coexist together inside several functions and they share several data elements with each other. In order to keep the data consistent and the context of the code aligned it’s needed to have all objects implemented.


      Renan Correa

  • Hi Tiago / Renan,

    I have following 2 queries.

    1. We know that as part of the upgrade there are new fields in Customer Master and Vendor Master. Are these fields going to be mandatory for BR when new master data is created ?

    If they are mandatory, then should there be a conversion for the existing master data.

    2. What is the impact of maintaining the Valid From date for XML 3.1 version in the SPRO settings against a Business place. Does this mean that the XML version will be valid or activated only from the Valid From date ? In the note 2057942, it is mentioned to maintain the valid from date as Go-Live date.


    Please clarify.



    • Hi Francis,

      1 – As mentioned during the Meet The Expert Sessions today, the new fields are not mandatory.

      2 – The Valid From date is used, since the configuration table was created, to define which line the system should consider to get the parameters to create the NF-es. So, if you inform 15/Nov as Valid From Date, as of this date the system will get this new entry, and will get a previous entry up to Nov 14th.

      This is useful when:

      a) You want to plan a future date for the configurations to be valid;

      b) To maintain a log of what were the previous definitions, for any tracking purposes;

      If this is not important for you, you COULD just change all information from the current entry, but I would not recommend this.


      Eduardo Hartmann

      • Hi Eduardo!

        Trying to build on what you replied:

        2 – Valid From date for NF-e params

        It might be too obvious, but it might aliviate doubts: given that a 99% of the companies have strict Release Management models, for testing purposes the Valid From date couldn’t reflect the actual Go Live date. In this case I had thought of putting the testing kick-off date, and then before moving live pushing the RevTrac back to DEV environment, change to GO Live date and push again to production. Can you confirm if this exercise good practice?

        -Also, our GRC expert recommends going live the first day of a month after month-end close is done with NF-e 2.00 and then following month starts with 3.10. We want to confirm that with you guys. Can you please advise?

        Thanks a lot in advance


        • Hi Nicolás,

          Let me start from the last part: there is no legal reason to change layout at a specific period (like starting from 1st day after month-close or similar). You can change between layouts any time you want, even you could issue docs in the new (3.10) and for some reason step back to 2.00. The only restriction is the due date of Dec.1st, meaning that after this date only version 3.10 will be accepted/authorized – so far I saw nothing about the government considering to postpone this date.

          But, you need to consider one technical aspect: there are different monitors in GRC for each layout, i.e., the monitor for NF-es in layout 3.10 is new, and does not show the docs from version 2.00 (and vice-versa). So, if you go live with new version in the middle of a period, users will have to check in both monitors for the documents issued that period.

          Particularly, I don’t see a big issue with this, as if all docs in version 2.00 have their status as Complete, users would only need to worry about those issued in new version. Consider that at ECC side you will have all docs on the same “view” (J1BNFE).

          Having the above in mind, the date that you will use as “Valid From” is a matter of what you decide of cutover date – if you don’t mind to change in the middle of the period, you could leave the date that was previously defined in DEV, and when the TRs are moved to PRD you will have the docs immediately active with new version. If you want it planned to some other date, just put that date in the config and it will be fine.

          Depending on the governance that you are subject to, you could use an “alternative” strategy: define in DEV the date you want to activate the new version (PRD), release the TR and later change (as it is part of the key, delete them and create new ones) the entries to be immediately active – so you can start tests.

          In QAS you could import that TR that will go to PRD and also change (delete/create) them to be effective from “now”. This would prevent from having UAT (User’s Acceptance Test) done and then having to rollback the changes – someone could dislike it (maybe more than changing entries in DEV/QAS). It’s up to you to decide. I used both options many times, according to customer’s will 🙂

          Also, take in consideration that, depending on which UF’s you must deal with or if you want to “activate” some business places first – to perform tests with less volumes 1st, if SEFAZ hasn’t released the webservices yet, etc. – you could be subject to plan the “Valid From” dates with more “rollouts”.

          Ps.: don’t forget that there is also customizing in GRC side that must match the ones from ECC (version of the messages per CNPJ).

          Kind regards,

          Eduardo Hartmann