Get Involved. Join the Conversation.


  • Niamath Jeddy


    Thanks for responding. The issue is due to a different reason. I was able to analyse and replicate it. Have raised an SR for the same.

    It wasn't due to 'Confirm Order' check box.



  • V Raghav

    Hi Suman,

    Thank you for sharing the above, this could indeed resolve the requirement. I will discuss further with team and client.



  • Suman Guha

    Hi Niamath,

    Doubt  the two notifications that you are seeing have anything to do with the Confirming Order checkbox.

    My understanding is the same as yours that it helps in communicating to the supplier that they already should be aware of and in the process of fulfilling the order.

    Have you tried the same scenario without the Confirming order checkbox checked? Are you getting different results?


  • Suman Guha

    Hi Ramamoorthy,

    Changing LE, BU references on inventory orgs with existing open POs on them sounds risky to say the least. You would want to run this by receipt accounting/cost management team to understand the nature of the impact it would have in those processes. 




  • Ashok

    Hi Stacee

    To this question below:


    Ashok - Another question for you regarding this same theme. We have a Requisition ABC with 6 'Approved' lines. Our buyer used lines 1,2 and 3 from ReqABC to create PO123.

    PO123 was subsequently cancelled, which leaves requisition lines 1,2 and 3 in archived state (status = Approved). However, requisition lines 4,5 and 6 still appear for the Buyer to select and ultimately create a new Purchase Order from. 

    I tried to have the Requester of ReqABC cancel lines 4,5 and 6, but the Cancel Lines option is grayed out and we are getting a 'line reinstated' message. Should our Requester be able to cancel requisition lines 4,5 and 6? Please see attached.



    1. The lines reinstated ought to be able to be canceled from the Requisition.

    2. I would ask if you are in the right user login that created this requisition. Can you confirm?

    3. If the answer to 2 is yes, can you try this once again with a different flow and let know if the same issue occurs?

    4. If yes, it would be advisable to triage this through an SR.

  • Michael Jang

    After reviewing the data attached in the previous email, we found that the human tasks were created on 7/19/2018 and have been marked as stale (STATE = stale and VERSIONREASON = Auto_Stale).  Human tasks older than 180 days will be purged and some tasks may be marked as stale for various reasons during that process.  To reprocess the PO, please ask customer to try to withdraw and resubmit it.

  • Suman Guha

    Please refer to this document, the "Purchasing Documents Control Action" section to understand the difference between close and final close.

    Final Close is a deliberate action taken by a human being to indicate to the system that all activities related to this document are complete. Tolerances don't play any role here. There's no automatic final closure from the system.

    Close on the other hand is more of a soft close and still lets you perform downstream activities although with a warning. It could happen automatically by the system based on receipt/invoicing activities plus close tolerances in place for the document or you could close it via a manual action.

  • Ivan Pena

    Hi Parul,

    Could you please open a service request (SR) with technical support so support & development can review this issue?



  • Parul Mehra

    Thank you, Ashok!

  • Ashok

    Moved from the Self Service Procurement forum.

  • Ashok


    The issue raised appears to be with Purchase Orders > Change Orders. Let me transfer this to Purchasing for them to review.

  • Deepika Nathany

    Hi Suman,

     Whats the difference? The system will set the PO to final Close if we update the receiving and Invoicing Tolerance.

    Similarly -- we want to track Invoicing but not Receiving -- we can only set the Receiving Tolerance to 100% 

    Just asking -- probably will help us understand this better from you... 

  • Ivan Pena
  • Mahendran Radhakrishnan

    Hi Sanket,

    I raised a SR for this and they have confirmed that the functionality does not exists currently and there is no workaround.




  • Suman Guha

    Am reading the requirement to be for the system to automatically FINAL close. Or is that not the case?