Skip to Content
Technical Articles
Author's profile photo Dominik Tylczynski

Error Message M7093 – Inconsistent Field Selection


Over and over again I have been seeing questions about the M7093Inconsistent Field Selection” message, that is generated during material documents postings. The article explains the route cause of the message, its logic and a tool to quickly rectify the problem.

The error message details

The long text of the error message M7093 documents the message at length and provides all the details on how to proceed. That is the good, old SAP school of handling errors.

Short Text

Fld selectn for mvmt type & / acct & differs for & (&)


Comparison of the field selection strings from movement type and G/L account has revealed that there is an incompatible field selection combination at one or more points.

Field for which the field selection is different:


On the movement type screen, a given field is a mandatory-entry field, whereas on the G/L account screen, the same field is suppressed.

System Response

You cannot post this transaction, unless you have changed the field selection adequately.


Contact your system administrator.

Action to be taken by the system administrator

Check whether any postings resulting from this movement type are to be made to the G/L account determined automatically. If you find that the G/L account is not correct, check the automatic account determination in the Customizing system for valuation.

If the G/L account is correct, use the report RM07CUFA to compare the field selection for the movement type with the field selection for the G/L account and change the incorrect settings or the field status group of the G/L account.

The problems stems from inconsistent settings of field statuses of material movements versus account groups. The following table shows which combinations are valid and which are not:

The logic is very straight forward – a material movement fields status needs to be such, so a material document can be posted inconsistently to FI. For instance: if a field is suppressed on a material movement and the same field is obligatory on an account group, then a material document cannot be posted – this case is illustrated in the bottom left corner of the above table.

Resolving inconsistencies

The message long text mentions utility report RM07CUFA. The report quickly analyzes MM and FI field statuses, shows any inconsistencies and allows to directly jump to respective configuration and quickly update the settings.

The report is started for a material movement type and a range of FI accounts:

The result is a list of all MM and FI field statuses, divided into field groups, with conflicts clearly marked:

Here, a problem with the Text field is clearly visible. The field is obligatory as per MM status and suppressed in FI – that is inconsistent.

A log of all the problems can be display with the button:

Respective MM and FI configuration of field statuses is easily accessible from both the result screen and the error log one:

I will change the setting from required entry to suppressed, get back to the report and refresh it. Now the Text field is suppressed both in MM and FI which rectifies the problem:

Beware that field status settings are configuration so depending on your system setup a transport request might be required.

The report is not assigned to any transaction, so it needs to be started from either SE38 or SA38.




Assigned Tags

      You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.
      Author's profile photo Ryan Crosby
      Ryan Crosby

      Both informative and thorough... nice job!

      Author's profile photo Dominik Tylczynski
      Dominik Tylczynski
      Blog Post Author

      RM07CUFA report is there in the system since like forever and it is mentioned in the error message. Still some consultants don't use it.

      Author's profile photo Stepan Kadera
      Stepan Kadera

      Hello Dominik Tylczynski


      Thank you for sharing, nicely desribed and very understandable.


      BTW. BIG congratulation on achieving champion status.

      Well deserved!

      Author's profile photo Dominik Tylczynski
      Dominik Tylczynski
      Blog Post Author

      Thank you! Being nominated SAP Champion is an honor indeed and huge priviledge.

      Author's profile photo Neeraj Jain
      Neeraj Jain

      Hello Dominik Tylczynski,

      Nicely explained the process to understand the functionality of RM07CUFA program.

      Regards, Neeraj Jain

      Author's profile photo Dominik Tylczynski
      Dominik Tylczynski
      Blog Post Author

      Thank you! I hope RM07CUFA will be used more often and there will be no more questions about M7093 error.

      Author's profile photo Neeraj Jain
      Neeraj Jain

      Correct, used this program so many times but earlier there is no proper steps defined.

      Author's profile photo Dominik Tylczynski
      Dominik Tylczynski
      Blog Post Author

      There is one more phenomenon that amazes me. When seeing M7093 that provides very clear explanation, resolution steps and even mentions the RM07CUFA report, users are more inclined to throw a question to SAP Q&A, instead of reading the message long text and run the report. Don't they read?

      Author's profile photo Neeraj Jain
      Neeraj Jain

      You are right. As well have seen so many questions like this where error message clearly define what is the issue.

      Author's profile photo Marek Kamiński
      Marek Kamiński

      Hello Dominik,


      As always very detailed and informative post. I haven't heard about RM07CUFA program.

      Thank you!


      Best Regards,

      Author's profile photo Dominik Tylczynski
      Dominik Tylczynski
      Blog Post Author

      Thank you Marek Kamiński

      RM07CUFA is a powerful tool indeed. Enjoy!

      Author's profile photo Gonçalo Garcia
      Gonçalo Garcia

      Good stuff Dominik,


      Don´t know how the current project/maintenance/operations experience from other colleagues that are around for longer is... I have mixed feelings and would appreciate some feedback from peers (you can call it "therapy").

      Here are some wider thoughts that came to mind based in the CUFA specific example: some 10/15 years ago as a junior guy I felt the urgency to deeply understand how the core ERP was built (the rationale), specially when I came into errors or the SPRO was not taking effect as I believe it should (obliviously most of the time I either had wrong assumptions or I did not know enough). Some months ago I was instructing some interns on MM flows and forced an MMPV error in order for them to be curious and to reflect by themselves, then showed the long text and compared it to a Z error message that was simply poorly done like "combination not allowed".

      Younger functional people seem to have zero interest in deep dives on techno functional stuff, let alone debugging. On the one hand I feel nostalgic on the other hand I also believe they might be right.

      They feel like LSMW, debugging, where-used analysis and that sort of stuff is a thing of the past, that front ends should have brainless usability (in a good sense).

      Some years ago when users complained about the GUI transactions complexity (screen arrangements, clueless buttons, etc...) I used to tell them that this ain´t no APP on your phone to check your airline miles balance, this is a B2B ERP that must be able to support many business processes and they usually accepted that. Nowadays this younger colleagues say that front ends must be child-like, technical errors are not admissible, reading a more than 10 page training document is out of the question ... anyway I´m probably getting a bit diffused by this point, hope not.

      The other day I had to help someone with an error in a PO, the root cause was easy to find and at first he was happy and asked me to fix it :), then I asked him: "ok but wait now! do you think this is either a positive or negative error?, is this lack of data maintenance or lack or SPRO?" he was a bit puzzled but ok, fair enough. I get the feeling this is common nowadays.

      Thanks for your open dedication to SAP!


      My only small remark based on own experience would be to add at the end of: ...Now the Text field is suppressed both in MM and FI which rectifies the problem:" [...] (note: goes without saying that this is only an example action and in real life it must be analysed case by case so that we don´t actually suppress an important field)


      Author's profile photo Dominik Tylczynski
      Dominik Tylczynski
      Blog Post Author

      Thank you Gonçalo Garcia for your valuable comment.

      Of course, text field suppression is just an artificial example to illustrate the logic of MM vs FI field status comparison. It is by no means a real life scenario.

      I do share your insights. SAP ERP is a very complex software. It needs to be such in order to support some many LOB, industries and processes in a flexible way. On top of that it is open source - ABAP code is clearly visible and changeable even. Having said that I don't think that user interface to the system can be much simplified. Therefore my mixed feelings about Fiori frenzy.