Purchasing

Get Involved. Join the Conversation.

Topic

    Thu Truong
    Error in approval using Position Hierarchy
    Topic posted August 15, 2019 by Thu TruongRed Ribbon: 250+ Points, tagged Approvals, Approvals/Notification, Setup 
    49 Views, 4 Comments
    Title:
    Error in approval using Position Hierarchy
    Summary:
    Error in approval using Position Hierarchy
    Content:

    I am trying to set approval rule using position hierarchy. But when approval PO, it throw an error: "Error occurred while displaying History tree table. Error in evaluating routing slip. Check the underlying exception and correct the error in the routing slip.".

    I already configured Position Tree, assign each user to each position in the position tree.

    I also looked for the error, there is a note: Position Hierarchy Is Not Working For Purchase Requisition (Doc ID 2225794.1). The document said that: "Set the Effective start date to a past date, before last server restart". But I don't know what the last server restart date is. 

    Can any experts help me to clear this point and setup my approval rule?

    Thank you.

     

    Version:
    11.13.19.07.0
    Image:

    Comment

     

    • Niamath Jeddy

      Hi,

      When I faced this issue, for the revision tree's start date, I gave a very old date like 1951 or so and it worked.

      I wasn't able to figure out the exact last server restart date though. 

      Regards,

      Niamath

      • Thu Truong

        Unfortunately, I changed to 1951, but the issue is still sad

        • Niamath Jeddy

          has row flattening been done?

          Also, is the job level mentioned in the rule (2) matching the job level of the jobs assigned to positions ?

          • Thu Truong

            Hi Niamath,

            Yes, the row flattening has been done.

            My position tree has 3 levels: A has job level 1, B has job level 2 and C has job level 3. The buyer is A with job level 1. Is my setup correct? I also tried setting minimum job level is 1 in the rule, but it does not work neither.

            Thanks,

            Thu