Best Of
Re: Error P4114 COSE 1017& HTTP 504
Hello,
This is caused because the associated kernel either crashes or has its message queue full of messages (outstanding requests). Since this is caused by a specific Business Function (F4211FSEditLine), please open a service request with JDE Distribution.
For a list of COSE (Call Object Server Error) messages, please check the Question 2 from "E1: JAS: Exception/Error Code in JAS when Call Object Kernel Fails on Logic Server with Error Code COSE#9999 (Doc ID 1094464.1)" document.
Thank you!
Best regards,
Cezar
Re: Primary vs Backup Approvers
Hello @Joe-OMB ,
I hope all is well with you over there ;o)
Thank you for your new post into the PeopleSoft ESA Community!!
Having reviewed the scenario presented, please, find here below my feedback:
- The current delivered functionality only allows to define current approvers in the Approver Assignment set up page. There is no way to define back-up approvers in this page, that become automatically active should a primary approver be out of the office.
- The Fluid Delegations feature, while thought to enable a more transaction specific re-routings in case of absence, it does not go deep enough as to be able to configure at the routing chartfield level.
- I would definitely suggest you raise a new Enhancement Request in the PeopleSoft Enterprise FIN Expenses Ideas Lab site for this topic.
- I noticed you mentioned the Monitor Approvals page in your explanation. Please, note that in the FIN Expenses module, the Monitor Approvals page should be used in Display Only mode, and never used to formally take any approval actions (Approve, Deny, Pushback, or Reassign). Those actions are not supported in this page. Instead, the Reassign Approval Work page should be used. (Navigation Path: Travel and Expenses >Manage Expenses Security > Reassign Approval Work)
As a workaround, I would suggest that the company develops a custom query where the User ID of the Approver being absent is being input, and the query returns the list of Expense Transactions currently in their queue, outstanding fr review/approval, returning also the routing chartfield being used, and the User ID of the new back-up Approver. With the report in hand, the Reassign Approval Work delivered page can be used to re-assign the transactions to the respective identified back-up approvers. The Monitor Approvals page, while non-supported in FIN Expenses, it forces the User to re-assign each transaction individually, while the Reassign Approval Work, several transactions can be re-assigned to the selected back-up approver.
While an idea, it is not perfect, and would still require manual intervention in the Reassign Approval Work page.
Let's see if other customers have had to deal with similar situations, and maybe they can share their experiences.
I hope that the information provided has clarified all your doubts. Should you have additional related questions, do not hesitate letting us know. On the contrary, if all your queries, and doubts have been successfully addressed, please make sure to mark 'YES' on the 'Did this answer the question? Yes-No' link. This will enable other Community Users to quickly identify the solution suggested, and see that this post has been successfully
answered.
Have an excellent day!
Pere Taulé
Re: Unable to store value from Rcustom header on REFER message for Extracting it in INVITE to referred
Hello All,
be aware that SBC constructs the new request-uri INVITE by extracting the whole uri-user space from Refer-To , so in order to store the values of customer headers in Refer-To header u need to add that values in uri-user-param , not uri-param because this latter one will be not carried in the request-uri of INVITE .
Also I see that value of GC_USERDATA header carries many semicolon characters , that may be a problem and potentially misunderstood by the SBC as different parameters , I've not tested but I suspect could be a problem when u r going to recall that values from the new INVITE .
Cheers
Antonio
Re: R3483 Is Not Creating Demand for Bill Type X1 and Route Type X1
Hello,
The firm work order header needs to be populated with the specified Bill type, such as your X1, and then attach the parts list, accordingly. For a planned work order, MRP will only plan the M bill type. See KM solution E1: 34: MRP Does Not Generate Demand For Components On Work Orders With Alternate Routing Type (Doc ID 2455197.1), for more information.
Regards,
Jeff
Re: Report publisher doesn not create PDF
What is the Submit Type value for the record in WSJ ?
Re: Report publisher doesn not create PDF
Check the corresponding record in WSJ and see if it is D or some other status.
If it is D, P95630 should have a record. You can open P95630 directly from fastpath and lookup using the UBE job# collected from WSJ.
Re: Report publisher doesn not create PDF
Check the status of the RD job in P95630. Then review the xmlp kernel jde log for any related errors.
Alternate Approvers for specific people/specific approval stop (using T&E as an example)
Looking for input on how to handle the following scenarios using delivered functionality:
- We have a Dept supervisor who wants to delegate their approval authority for their direct reports to another person. Delegation will not work because if they’re also setup as an Expense Approver, it would auto-reassign those transactions as well. And we cannot override the Supervisor on their T&E Profile because the Employee Sync overrides this.
2. Somewhat similar to #1, an agency wants a specific person approving the HR Supervisor stop for a list of 10 people. This specific example is they want the CFO approving all Section Director’s travel, and when the CFO submits an ER it goes to a specific person to approve. Again, we cannot just update the Supervisor on their T&E profile because the Employee Sync overrides this setup, and Delegation will not work because we do not want it all-encompassing for that person in the module.
3. Similar to #2 but for when the Expense Manager submits an ER, when it gets to the Expense Manager stop they want their ER’s being approved by a specific person. We do not want to set this user up in general because then they’ll get all ER’s for that stop assigned to them, and Delegation/Alternate User doesn’t work because it would be all-encompassing for that user—it needs to only be for when that specific user (who is the primary Expense Manager for the agency) submits an ER, when it gets to the Expense Manager stop it needs to be assigned to a specific person to approve.
Primary vs Backup Approvers
We need the ability to assign backup approvers for specific routings but do not want them enabled/active until they’re actually needed, and many of them are already setup in other routings for the same step. If we assign the route controls they are backups for to their User Profile, there is no way for them to know when they need to step in and approve the applicable transactions because both their primary and backup transactions would all be assigned to them.
Delegation will not work either because it will auto-reassign every transaction for a specific user per module. We do not want it all-encompassing for a specific user, but rather for a specific routing. For example, within an agency’s section Approver A is set up to approve Routings 1, 2 and 3 based on a combination of Dept ID, Project or SpeedChart (Dept/Proj/Activity combo) used. They have specific people qualified to back them up in certain areas, so when they are out of office, Routing 1 needs to go to Approver B, Routing 2 needs to go to Approver C, and routing 3 needs to go to Approver D. Delegation doesn’t allow for this level of detail—it would reassign all transactions for Approver A to either Approver B, C or D. Because of the sensitivity of the data/transactions, this cannot happen.
How can we set up backup approvers for specific routings when they are also currently an active approver for a different routing, but only assign the backup transactions to them when needed? We do NOT want to have to go into Monitor Approvals and manually reassign these transactions every time someone is out of the office/inaccessible. This wouldn't work anyways because you're not able to filter on specific chartfields in Monitor Approvals. We want the functionality of Delegation but for specific routings within a module rather than all-encompassing for the module for that user. Going in and assigning the Route Control Profile to the backup's User Profile is not ideal because it doesn't take into account transactions currently assigned to the primary—this is where have the Delegation functionality would be nice so items currently assigned are also reassigned.
Thoughts on how we can handle this?



