Best Of
Re: F4111 and F41021 Qty Mismatch
Thank you for your question.
This is not usually seen in normal conditions, but it can occur occasionally.
It is true, due to the high utilization of the F41021 table, it is kept outside transaction processing to avoid record locking issues. Because of this, if a transaction fails, updates to other tables are rolled back, but F41021 is not. This can lead to data mismatches, such as issues with PQOH.
In newer releases, there is some automatic handling to roll back F41021 updates, but it may not cover all scenarios.
Running R42210 regularly is not required. However, if such issues occur from time to time, you can schedule it (preferably during non-working hours) to correct the data.
The recent issues at your customer side could be due to increased system activity or higher load on F41021.
Regards,
Mahesh
Re: P4210 DB504 (SF/OF order entry) - alert for mismatched currencies
Hi @User_D79FJ,
Thanks for the update.
You can log a Technical Service Request (SR) through the My Oracle Support portal.
After logging in, go to the “Service Requests” tab and click on “Create SR”, then select the option for a Technical SR and provide the issue details.
If you don’t have access, you may need to register or contact your organization’s support administrator.
Regards,
Mahesh
Re: Clarification on Difference Between F30026 and F4105 for Standard Cost Extraction
Hi @User_J1HKN,
F30026 and F4105 serve different purposes.
F30026 (Item Cost Components) stores the detailed breakdown of cost such as material, labor, and overhead. It is mainly used for cost analysis and simulation, especially in manufacturing.
F4105 (Item Cost File) stores the final cost of the item, including standard and actual cost. This is the table used in day-to-day transactions like inventory, sales, and purchasing.
If your requirement is to extract the standard cost per item, you should use F4105, as it directly provides the standard cost.
As a best practice, use F4105 for reporting standard costs and use F30026 only when you need cost breakdown details. Avoid using F30026 to derive standard cost, as it may lead to incorrect results.
Regards,
Mahesh
(Note: If this answers your query, please mark it as answered so it can help other members facing a similar question.)
Re: E1 30 What is the best practice regarding an item which will change from purchased to manufactured
Hi @User_MT0SE,
The safer and more common approach is to create a new item number for the manufactured part instead of converting the existing purchased item.
The reason is that JDE treats purchased and manufactured items quite differently (costing, BOM/routing, MRP, etc.). If we reuse the same item, it can end up mixing procurement and manufacturing history, which makes costing, planning, and reporting harder to manage.
Creating a new item keeps things cleaner:
- Clear separation of costs
- Proper BOM and routing setup
- More predictable MRP behavior
- Better traceability
Typical approach would be to create the new manufactured item, and then obsolete and phase out the current purchased one.
Reusing the same item can work, but only if there are no major changes in cost, lead time, or process.
Regards,
Mahesh
(Note: If this answers your query, please mark it as answered so it can help other members facing a similar question.)
Re: Restricting account number and sub-ledger in PO Entry
Hi @User_KUZ38,
There is no direct way in JD Edwards to restrict users to a specific range of account numbers and sub-ledger types in P4310.
As a workaround, you can try using Row Security. However, please note:
- Users may still enter restricted values in the grid, but they will get an error when they click OK, and the transaction will be rolled back.
- Applying Row Security on the Account Master (F0901) is not recommended, as it can impact many other applications.
You can refer to following Oracle documents for more details on Row Security:
- E1: SEC: Frequently Asked Questions on Row Security (FAQ3388)
- E1: SEC: Overview of Inclusive Row Security versus Exclusive Row Security (KB636855)
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Mahesh
Re: How to handle circular reference in batches for cases of re-processing
The initial section of the document 417820.1 was of particular interest to me, where it states:
Circular References can be of three types:
- Item 'A' is both an Ingredient and a Product in the same Formula.
- Item 'A' is an Ingredient of Item 'B', and in another Formula Item 'B' is an Ingredient of Item 'A'.
- Item 'A' is an Ingredient of 'B' which is an Ingredient of 'C', and 'C' is an Ingredient of 'A'.
This leads me to think of a work around as below.
RM --> Raw Material
PM --> Packing Material
BL --> Bulk Item, processed from RM
FG --> Finished Good, processed from Bulk and PM
XF --> Scrap FG, used to switch over the item from FG to XF using a dummy batch
XB --> Scrap Bulk, used to switch over the item from BL to XB using a dummy batch
Process:
=========
Batch B01: (Original Batch)
RM --> BL (Lot: LB01)
Batch B11: (Original Batch)
(PM+BL) --> FG (Lot: LB11)
Batch B11D: (Dummy Batch, just to switch over the item code)
FG --> XF (Lot: LB11D)
Batch B01R: (Re-Processing Batch for Bulk)
(XF+RM) --> BL (Lot: LB01R)
Batch B11R:
(PM+BL [Consuming LB01R]) --> FG (Lot: LB11R)
Would the above process result in cyclic reference? I think so, it would generate #3 type of cyclic reference.
I welcome any other ideas.
Re: Material Debrief error in EBS12.2.14
Hello Ashish,
You may first compile the CSI schema with adadmin.
Then make sure that there are no CSI invalid objects:
select object_name, object_type
from all_objects
where status = 'INVALID'
and object_name like 'CSI%'
and owner = 'APPS';
Reprocess the debrief and see if it is still erroring.
Thank you,
Adriana
Re: [EBS - AP] Pop up message on new line added or discarded on an old invoice
Hello Matthieu,
A few things to consider:
Use Help > Diagnostics > Examine to confirm the name and contents of :inv_sum_folder.gl_date. Some forms store the value in a display field such as gl_date_disp instead of gl_date. Some forms that use _disp populate both field and field_disp, but some don't. Remember the colon, a common issue is to use folder.block instead of :folder.block
Does your company's fiscal year in Oracle always end on Dec 31? If it does, then it's fine to use sysdate. If your December periods may end on different dates, then you will need to add gl_periods to the condition to confirm which fiscal year sysdate is in, to make sure invoices at the end of the year are handled as you want.
For a personalization, always consider if there is a null case. Could the GL date on the header be null at any point in time? If the user enters a new invoice and doesn't save the header, can they click on a line? If they can, then test what the condition does with a null :inv_sum_folder.gl_date and if it's what you want. The same thing applies if you wanted to use the :lin_sum_folder.gl_date; the form may assign a line gl date upon validation instead of upon new record instance.
Regards,
J
Oracle R12 not calculating SDI California correctly in 2026?
Is anyone else having issues with SDI CA not being calculated correctly. We have all the patches installed and looks like for 2026 it is still using the 1.2% rate instead of 1.3%. I would also like to ask how SDI is calculated to make sure we re doing it right. Is it 1.3% of the gross amount? If anyone has had this issue any help would be appreciated