Are you not getting this error E7-302 after SP upgrade from tx ES21? if yes, then you are reading the right blog 😉 yes, after our SP for IS-UT upgraded to SAPK-61708INISUT, we are not getting this error message when we try to change one of the Contract’s Joint Invoice indicator to ‘1’ (Contract must be invoiced jointly with other contracts) for Dual Fuel Customer i.e. two Contracts under one Contract Account.
Dual fuel customer with active Payment Scheme or when you try to create a Payment Scheme.
E.g. A Contract Account (with Budget Billing Procedure = 4) has two Contracts (no alternate Portion at Contract level) where the corresponding Installations are under different MRU which belongs to different Portions. To create PS (at CA level) our pre-requisite is that both Contracts should have JI flag as ‘1’. Initially by default Contracts are created with JI flag as ‘2’. Now when we try to change the Contracts to have JI as ‘1’ we were getting this error message E7-302 [Contract &1 (&2) has a different portion than contract &3 (&4)] but not after our SP upgrade from ES21 😕
Analysis and Observation
I checked the program behind ES21 and found that from SAP Note 1966454 – (ES21: Message E7-302 with Alternative Portion), they have introduced a check on Portion level BB Cycle i.e. field ABSZYK from table TE420. Ideally for our Payment Scheme procedure this field is irrelevant, and hence Contracts/Installations are now allowed to have different Portions. You can find this in Include ℹ LES27F10, FORM CC_PORTION.
After my analysis I raised this an OSS message with SAP and a new SAP Note 2272494 is released (just today 02.02.2016 🙂 ) which is the solution note for old note 1966454. The correction now rightly includes to check on Budget Billing Procedure which is the key to raise this error 🙂 .
➕ Further notes:
I thought I will post this blog so that it will be helpful for others dealing with ‘SAP for Utilities’ upgrade projects.
Ideally you will face this issue during testing phase of the project (and depending on your BBP setting under posting area 301) in non-production environment, and if you raise this with SAP OSS then it might be considered as low priority and would be delayed in getting it fixed. But with this blog, I hope you have googled your issue and found this blog 😉 , you can quickly check the solution note mentioned above and implement the corrections.
Thanks for reading this! 😎