Technical Specification PROJECT SRISHTI Implementation ABAP Technical Specification Version Status Date 1.0 Released 19.11.2010 Technical Name TS-FI-AP-0016 Description One time vendor Validation in FV60 transaction Prepared by (Technical person) Surendar Reddy P Developed by Surendar Reddy P Functional Owner Rishi Swarnakar Object Name YCLIM_AC_DOCUMENT Object Type Enhancement Transaction Code FV60 Package YDFI Complexity Medium document.doc Page 1 of 22
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Technical Specification
PROJECT SRISHTIImplementation
ABAP Technical Specification
Version Status Date1.0 Released 19.11.2010
Technical Name TS-FI-AP-0016
Description One time vendor Validation in FV60 transaction
Prepared by(Technical person)
Surendar Reddy P
Developed by Surendar Reddy P
Functional Owner Rishi Swarnakar
Object Name YCLIM_AC_DOCUMENT
Object Type Enhancement
Transaction Code FV60
Package YDFI
Complexity Medium
document.doc Page 1 of 19
Technical Specification
1) Technical Design
1.1) Process Description:The purpose of this development is to meet the business requirement of restricting any one tome vendor from receiving a payment of an amount exceeding Rs 50000/- against one invoice .The payment can be more than that amount if the invoices are more than one.
Business Process Detail:This is a business requirement to have a restriction on payment of an amount exceeding Rs 50000/- on one invoice of one time vendor.
3.2) Output FieldsThe following fields should be displayed in the output:
Sl No Name Table & Field Name
4) Program Flow:
Program Name
YCLIM_AC_DOCUMENT( BADI Implementation name )
(1) Create BADI implementation YCLIM_AC_DOCUMENT for the definition
AC_DOCUMENT.(2) Write the logic in method CHANGE_INITIAL(3) The logic is to be work only if the sy-tcode is FV60. (4) IM_DOCUMENT-ITEM is the internal table of the BADI contains the runtime accounting
documents line items, copy the accounting documents line items into another internal table of same structure.
(5) Sort the accounting documents line items table by LIFNR field descending order. Read the internal table with index 1.
(6) Get the accounting group (KTOKK) of the vendor based on LIFNR value from the LFA1 table.
(7) If the accounting group is ‘Z028’, check the PSWBT field value is greater than 50000 or not by looping the internal table. If greater than 50000 give an error message
‘Parking of an invoice on One Time Vendor is restricted to Rs 50000/- ‘.
5) Error Handling:
Message Class
Message Type
Message No.
Error Message Corrective Action / Long Text
YMMM E 025 Parking of an invoice on One Time Vendor is restricted to Rs 50000/-
15.3) SAP Transactions/Batch Programs triggering the WorkFlowSAP Transactions and Batch Programs that trigger this workflow:
15.4) RequirementsWorkflow Requirements
Visio of Workflow Requirements
15.5) Fulfillment of definition by WorkFlowDescription of how the Workflow fulfills that definition
document.doc Page 8 of 19
Technical Specification
16) TS Review Report
Ver. SL. No. Description Severity Status Fixed Date Reviewed By
1.0 1 No issues found Sarath Babu
17) Approvals/History
17.1) Approvals I3L Tech Lead I3L Tech Lead’s signature for acceptance Date
Hotels Tech Lead Hotels Tech Lead’s signature for acceptance Date
document.doc Page 9 of 19
Technical Specification
18) Code Review Checklist
document.doc Page 10 of 19
Technical Specification
Sl. No.
Description Self Review TL Review Comments Fixed Date
General
1 Is the name of program as mentioned in the specification/naming standards of ITC?
Y Y
2 Is coding sequence of events in appropriate order? NA NA
3 Events described in development approach are used? NA NA
4 Are text elements being maintained in required languages and hard coded information removed?
NA NA
5 Is formatting of amount and quantity fields done by using CURRENCY and UNIT options?
NA NA
6 Is clearing of work areas done, wherever required? Y Y
7 Is function key assignment as per the standards? NA NA
8 Have all the keys been mentioned in SELECT SINGLE? NA NA
9 SELECT * has NOT been used NA NA
10 Aggregate clauses are NOT used in SELECT. (Viz. SUM, COUNT, ORDER BY, GROUP BY)
NA NA
document.doc Page 11 of 19
Technical Specification
11 CHECK statement is not used in SELECT - ENDSELECT loop
NA NA
12 Has the clause 'FOR ALL ENTRIES' been used instead of a nested select
NA NA
13 Has the internal table used in the "FOR ALL ENTRIES IN” been checked for emptiness?
NA NA
14 Are all SELECTs coded outside LOOP - ENDLOOP? NA NA
15 Is the Binary search clause used with the read table statement?
NA NA
16 Has the clause "INTO TABLE <Internal table>" been used instead of INTO CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF INTERNAL TABLE?
NA NA
17 Has the entire table key been specified in the select clause of the statement which contains the addition “for all entries in “?
NA NA
18 Has the clause "APPENDING TABLE Internal table" been used instead of APPENDING CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF internal table
NA NA
19 Have the internal tables been sorted by appropriate keys before being looped at or being used in a read statement?
NA NA
document.doc Page 12 of 19
Technical Specification
20 Appropriate message classes and types used NA NA
21 In a where clause have the fields been put in the same order as the existing index?
NA NA
22 In a where clause have the tests which restrict the data most been put in the first position?
NA NA
23 Are all the possible screen validations done? Y Y
24 Has the delete where clause been used instead of delete statement inside a LOOP ENDLOOP?
NA NA
25 Has “delete from internal table" been used instead of deleting the records inside a LOOP?
NA NA
26 Has the transporting clause been used along with the 'MODIFY internal table' statement?
NA NA
27 In case of mass updation has the modify table from itab been used instead of using modify statement inside a LOOP?
NA NA
28 Have implanted loops been used instead of implanted Selects?
NA NA
29 There are no duplicate SELECT statements. NA NA
30 If the development includes BDC, have the user default settings been taken into account while posting numeric
NA NA
document.doc Page 13 of 19
Technical Specification
values?
document.doc Page 14 of 19
Technical Specification
31 In programs where file(s) are read from or written to, does the program check for the emptiness of the file and hence terminate without proceeding further ?
NA NA
32 In case of SMARTFORM have all SELECT statements are coded in the INITIALIZATION block
NA NA
33 Has all the exceptions are handled during a CALL FUNCTION?
NA NA
Forms and Modules
34 Are names self explanatory and prefixed by sequence numbers
NA NA
35 Are Forms and Modules ordered NA NA
36 Are Function modules and related logic included in separate Forms, wherever necessary
NA NA
37 Is SY-SUBRC checked after each call to a function module?
NA NA
38 Usage of correct parameters (field lengths and data types) while using CALL FUNCTION
NA NA
Code Alignment, Spacing and Formatting
39 Are ‘=’, ‘TO’, ‘TYPE’ and ‘VALUE’ in variable declarations NA NA
document.doc Page 15 of 19
Technical Specification
aligned
document.doc Page 16 of 19
Technical Specification
40 Are Internal Comments aligned NA NA
41 Are logically different Coding Blocks separated by blank lines
NA NA
42 Is the format for SQL statements correct NA NA
43 Are ‘ENDIF’, ‘ENDLOOP’, ‘ENDAT’ etc. commented (if necessary) to indicate the IF, LOOP etc. they belong to
NA NA
Error Handling
44 Are ‘divide by zero’ errors checked, by checking value of the divisor to be nonzero before each division
NA NA
45 Are size errors being checked, by ensuring that the sizes of variables used for storing totals and additions are large enough to hold anticipated maximum values
NA NA
46 Is SY-SUBRC checked after CALL, OPEN, READ, and SQL statements?
Y Y
Extended Check and Clean Up
47 Is extended program check completed and all errors/warnings removed?
NA NA
48 Code inspector (SCI) Status NA NA
document.doc Page 17 of 19
Technical Specification
49 Runtime Analysis (SE30) Status NA NA
50 SQL Trace (ST05) Status NA NA
19) Code Review Report
20) Unit Test Plan
document.doc Page 18 of 19
Ver SL. No. Description Severity Status Fixed Date Reviewed By
1.0 1 No issues found Sarath Babu
Technical Specification
20.1) TEST SCENARIO SCENARIO: One time vendor Validation in FV60 and F-65 Transactions OWNER: Surendar
Reddy PBUSINESS CASE: One time vendor Validation in FV60 and F-65 Transactions STATUS: OKDESCRIPTION: One time vendor Validation in FV60 and F-65 Transactions RUN NO.:
EXPECTED RESULTS: One time vendor Validation in FV60 and F-65 Transactions RUN DATE:
System/Client RD9/300
20.2) SETUP DATADATA OBJECT VALUE/CODE DESCRIPTION COMMENTS AND NOTES
20.3) TRANSACTIONAL STEPSNo BUSINESS PROCESS STEPS /