19.3.018: Problem With Allocation Of A Transfer Between Warehouses In The Process Of Receipt For WMS (Doc ID 2993342.1)

Last updated on DECEMBER 19, 2023

Applies to:

Goal

Problem with allocation of a transfer between warehouses in the process of receipt for OWMS

The allocation of a transfer between warehouses is not being linked to the transfer, this happens because the order type is missing in the purchase order number “-T” or “-A”.

Steps that were carried out to have the case:

1. Create a transfer between warehouse in MFCS example facility from 7600 to 7440 transfer number 4000167199
2. The transfer is charged to OWMS and in the order number add –T at the end 4000167199-T
3. The Order is distributed and shipped to the final warehouse 7440
4.In MFCS the shipment is generated in and the RibToLogFireASNIn_ASNInCre message is sent to OWMS, where the order goes as follows <po_nbr>4000167199-T file with USM message is attached
5. In OWMS the purchase order is created and also the ASN for this transfer in the purchase order number have the value 4000167199-T
6. In the allocation module, the allocation for transfer stores 4000167199-T is generated, this is filtered by Bill of Lading to generate the example allocation (1000086270 and 1000086271).
7. The assignment (1000086270 and 1000086271) is sent to OWMS for transfer 4000167199.
8. In USM, when the message is transformed to OWMS, it places the label of the purchase order so that it is linked to the transfer <po_nbr>4000167199, but it does not have the type of order in this case it is “-T ”
9. When the transfer receipt 4000167199-T is made in OWMS, the merchandise is not distributed with the assignments 1000086270 and 1000086271 because the purchase order number is not the same, in the ASN the purchase order number is 4000167199-T and in orders the purchase order number is 4000167199.

Workaround: Apply the following change to the USM inside the RibToLogFireStockOrder_SOCre_RequestDataMapping.template file. This applies in our case because the transfers between warehouses we handle the numbering 4000000XXX or 1000000XXX and for purchase orders for suppliers we have the consecutive 300000X, this because in the file that MFCS sends in no label we have the document_type of the po_nbr field to concatenate it. You see some risk if we make this change in USM, in order to continue with the operation in the distribution centers.

Solution

My Oracle Support provides customers with access to over a million knowledge articles and a vibrant support community of peers and Oracle experts.