I also noticed that our PRD system which only had the one PTEX2000 record had a status of "2" (Error occurred during transfer, the record could not be posted). However, in my P1Q test, where we had 4 PTEX2000 records, the status of the records were either "1" [Record has been successfully transferred] or "4" [A record has been canceled. The original and changed (canceled) record cancel each other out. They are not transferred but remain in the interface table.].
---------------Original Message---------------
From: Erik Isaacs
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:16 PM
Subject: Problem posting CATSDB data via CAT6 to IT2002 with status "30" and "60" records having overlapping time.
> We are running into an issue where we will have two CATSDB records. One record will be the original time pair that was previously in status "30" (Approved via CATS_APPR_LITE > CAT2_ISCR). But, after realizing there was an issue, the Time Approver (TA) went back into CATS_APPR_LITE, changed the End Time for one of the pairs (e.g. added 2 more hours; therefore there is overlapping time and potential Time Collisions), then went back and approved the time for the pair. This creates a second CATSDB record now in status "30" and the original in status "60" (Cancelled). Then, we run CAT6 via a Batch Job and the record written to IT2002 (Attendances) is the "60" record, not the "30"! What is extra strange is that I try to replicate the issue in our P1Q environment by creating CATSDB entries in CAT2, followed the same process, and the status "30" record writes correctly!!! I don't know if this was something relate
> d to the time coming being entered by me versus coming from our Kronos Time Clocks. I doubt it. I didn't know if I needed to look at configuration for tables V_T554Y (Global Time Constraint Reaction) or V_554Y_B (Time Constraint Reaction to Time Mgmt Infotypes)? I don't know if it's some bizzare authoirization issue because as the HR Functional Lead in IT, I pretty much have full security rights, and maybe it's limited for the TA's. That too would seem odd. I can possibly understand why someone would want a status "60" record to overwrite a status "30" record. But, if both exist BEFORE CAT6, shouldn't the "30" record prevail? Is it some kind of sorting or Time Collision issue? I saw some notes discussing table PTEX2000. I did see that in P1Q I had four records vs. only one in PRD. I am hoping somebody out there has an answer as I am somewhat stumped.
>
> Note: We are on ECC 6.0, HRSP 52, SP16. We earlier loaded some OSS Notes (1445897, 1441458 and 1358487 per advice from SAP).
| __.____._ Copyright © 2010 Toolbox.com and message author.
Toolbox.com 4343 N. Scottsdale Road Suite 280, Scottsdale, AZ 85251
| |  _.____.__ |
Mark as helpful
