eTRM uses javascript that opens and focuses a separate window to display reports. Your browser does not appear to support javascript. This should not prevent you from using eTRM but it does mean the window focus feature will not work. Please check the contents of other windows on your desktop if you click on a link that does not appear to do anything.

APPS.GMF_LOT_COSTING_PUB dependencies on GMF_MATERIAL_LOT_COST_TXNS

Line 287: --* Modified Code to remove the references to trans_id in gmf_material_lot_cost_txns table

283: --* 31-May-2005 Dinesh Vadivel - Bug 4320765(Part B)
284: --* Modified "Explosion_Cursor" to avoid duplicate rows
285: --* 01-Jun-2005 Sukarna Reddy INCONV changes for release 12.
286: --* 07-Jun-2006 Anand Thiyagarajan Bug#5285726
287: --* Modified Code to remove the references to trans_id in gmf_material_lot_cost_txns table
288: --* which caused the lot cost process after a final run to calculate wrong costs
289: --* 07-Jun-2006 Anand Thiyagarajan Bug#5287514
290: --* Modified code to call process_receipts procedure for Purchase Order Return to Vendors
291: --* and for PO Receipt corrections, which are similar to the Purchase Order receipts with a +ve or -ve signs

Line 2060: --* Procedure to create a new linking transaction in gmf_material_lot_cost_txns *

2056:
2057:
2058: --**********************************************************************************************
2059: --* *
2060: --* Procedure to create a new linking transaction in gmf_material_lot_cost_txns *
2061: --* *
2062: --**********************************************************************************************
2063: PROCEDURE create_material_transaction
2064: ( p_header_id IN NUMBER

Line 2108: INSERT INTO gmf_material_lot_cost_txns

2104: fnd_file.put_line(fnd_file.log,'New Cost Ind :'||p_new_cost_ind);
2105: fnd_file.put_line(fnd_file.log,'Lot Number :'||p_lot_number);
2106: END IF;
2107:
2108: INSERT INTO gmf_material_lot_cost_txns
2109: ( cost_trans_id
2110: , cost_header_id
2111: , cost_type_id
2112: , cost_trans_date

Line 2367: --* from the gmf_material_lot_cost_txns. The issue arises if we have the same item in two different lot cost methods

2363: --* HISTORY
2364: --*
2365: --* 27-Nov-2004 Dinesh Vadivel Bug# 4004338
2366: --* Added cost_type_code in where clause of the select query which returns the header_id
2367: --* from the gmf_material_lot_cost_txns. The issue arises if we have the same item in two different lot cost methods
2368: --* and try to run the Lot Actual Cost Process
2369: --*************************************************************************************
2370:
2371: PROCEDURE process_adjustment

Line 2479: --* NEW_COST_IND in gmf_material_lot_cost_txns is used in the Subledger Posting.

2475: --* X$ - where X$ is the cost of the record that is prior to 100 if any exists.
2476: --* This X$ will be set one and only if we get 100 and -100 adjacent.
2477: --*
2478: --* Dinesh -No Bug# - Earlier new_cost_ind was not set up properly.Now corrected along with 4053149
2479: --* NEW_COST_IND in gmf_material_lot_cost_txns is used in the Subledger Posting.
2480: --* If this indicator is set to 1 then that means whatever cost pointed by
2481: --* header_id in gmf_lot_cost_details is the AVERAGE COST and not the actual
2482: --* TRANSACTION COST. The Actual Transaction cost is under the negative of header_id.
2483: --* So, depending on this NEW_COST_IND, the SL will decide on posting at the cost of

Line 2486: --* Dinesh 4227784 - Issue due to the above changes. Since we have added gmf_material_lot_cost_txns

2482: --* TRANSACTION COST. The Actual Transaction cost is under the negative of header_id.
2483: --* So, depending on this NEW_COST_IND, the SL will decide on posting at the cost of
2484: --* header_id or negative of header_id (i.e., -header_id)
2485: --*
2486: --* Dinesh 4227784 - Issue due to the above changes. Since we have added gmf_material_lot_cost_txns
2487: --* to the get_previous_costs_cur CURSOR, while querying for the prev-prev transaction
2488: --* it will ignore the reversal transactions if any, because the reversal transaction will
2489: --* not have the exact header_id as in gmf_lot_costs. Rather it will have the same header_id
2490: --* as that of its original transaction.

Line 2544: FROM gmf_material_lot_cost_txns gmlct

2540: /* Bug 4227784 - Dinesh Added this as we removed txns table from above query */
2541: CURSOR get_material_lot_cost_txns(p_header_id NUMBER)
2542: IS
2543: SELECT gmlct.new_cost_ind
2544: FROM gmf_material_lot_cost_txns gmlct
2545: WHERE gmlct.cost_header_id = p_header_id
2546: ORDER BY cost_trans_id DESC
2547: ;
2548:

Line 2553: l_cost_header_id gmf_material_lot_cost_txns.cost_header_id%TYPE;

2549: l_prev_cost_cnt NUMBER := 0;
2550: l_prev_header_id gmf_lot_costs.header_id%TYPE;
2551: l_prev_prev_header_id gmf_lot_costs.header_id%TYPE := NULL;
2552: l_prev_unit_cost gmf_lot_costs.unit_cost%TYPE;
2553: l_cost_header_id gmf_material_lot_cost_txns.cost_header_id%TYPE;
2554:
2555: l_onhand_qty gmf_lot_costs.onhand_qty%TYPE;
2556: l_header_id gmf_lot_costs.header_id%TYPE;
2557: l_unit_cost gmf_lot_costs.unit_cost%TYPE;

Line 2560: l_prev_new_cost_ind gmf_material_lot_cost_txns.new_cost_ind%TYPE; /* Dinesh No Bug# */

2556: l_header_id gmf_lot_costs.header_id%TYPE;
2557: l_unit_cost gmf_lot_costs.unit_cost%TYPE;
2558: l_prev_trans_unit_cost gmf_lot_cost_details.component_cost%TYPE;
2559: l_cmpnt_cost gmf_lot_cost_details.component_cost%TYPE;
2560: l_prev_new_cost_ind gmf_material_lot_cost_txns.new_cost_ind%TYPE; /* Dinesh No Bug# */
2561: procedure_name VARCHAR2(100);
2562:
2563: BEGIN
2564:

Line 2786: --* in the average cost of the lot. gmf_material_lot_cost_txns will be pointed to the original

2782: --* Desc: New Procedure for handling batch product reversal transactions
2783: --* In process_reversals procedure we check whether the cost record in gmf_lot_costs
2784: --* just prior to reversal transaction is its Original transaction.
2785: --* If so, we will leap frog that record so as to reverse the effect of original transaction
2786: --* in the average cost of the lot. gmf_material_lot_cost_txns will be pointed to the original
2787: --* transaction record, so that subledger posts the entry accordingly. BUT we are not handling
2788: --* the case if original transactions and reversal transactions don't come next to each other.
2789: --* we process it as adjustment and it is a known issue.
2790: --*

Line 2807: FROM gmf_material_lot_cost_txns txns

2803: IS
2804: CURSOR get_orig_trx(p_orig_trans_id NUMBER)
2805: IS
2806: SELECT DECODE(NVL(txns.new_cost_ind,0), 0, txns.cost_header_id, -txns.cost_header_id), txns.new_cost_ind
2807: FROM gmf_material_lot_cost_txns txns
2808: WHERE txns.transaction_id = p_orig_trans_id;
2809:
2810: l_orig_trx_header_id gmf_lot_costs.header_id%TYPE;
2811: l_orig_trx_new_cost_ind NUMBER;

Line 6513: DELETE FROM gmf_material_lot_cost_txns

6509: --
6510: -- Delete all material trx info
6511: --
6512: FORALL indx IN l_indx_from..l_indx_to
6513: DELETE FROM gmf_material_lot_cost_txns
6514: WHERE cost_header_id in l_header_ids_tab(indx);
6515:
6516: l_matl_rows_deleted := l_matl_rows_deleted + SQL%ROWCOUNT;
6517:

Line 6558: fnd_file.put_line(fnd_File.LOG, ' ' || l_matl_rows_deleted || ' rows deleted from gmf_material_lot_cost_txns.');

6554: DELETE FROM gmf_lot_costs
6555: WHERE rowid in l_rowids_tab(indx);
6556:
6557:
6558: fnd_file.put_line(fnd_File.LOG, ' ' || l_matl_rows_deleted || ' rows deleted from gmf_material_lot_cost_txns.');
6559: fnd_file.put_line(fnd_File.LOG, ' ' || l_cdtl_rows_deleted || ' rows deleted from gmf_lot_cost_details.');
6560: fnd_file.put_line(fnd_File.LOG, ' ' || SQL%ROWCOUNT || ' rows deleted from gmf_lot_costs.');
6561:
6562:

Line 6579: FROM gmf_material_lot_cost_txns t

6575:
6576:
6577:
6578: DELETE
6579: FROM gmf_material_lot_cost_txns t
6580: WHERE cost_type_id = l_cost_type_id
6581: AND EXISTS (
6582: SELECT 1
6583: FROM gmf_lot_costs glc,

Line 8242: FROM gmf_material_lot_cost_txns gmlc

8238: AND transaction_action_id = 15;
8239:
8240: SELECT cost_header_id
8241: INTO l_header_id
8242: FROM gmf_material_lot_cost_txns gmlc
8243: WHERE transaction_id = l_trans_id
8244: AND lot_number = transaction_row.lot_number
8245: AND cost_type_id = l_cost_type_id;
8246:

Line 8695: FROM GMF_MATERIAL_LOT_COST_TXNS gmlct

8691: AND mmt.organization_id = lcig.organization_id
8692: AND mmt.transaction_source_type_id = 5
8693: AND mtln.lot_number = nvl(p_lot_no,mtln.lot_number)
8694: AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1
8695: FROM GMF_MATERIAL_LOT_COST_TXNS gmlct
8696: WHERE gmlct.transaction_id = mmt.transaction_id /* ANTHIYAG Bug#5285726 07-Jun-2006 */
8697: AND gmlct.cost_type_id = l_cost_type_id
8698: AND gmlct.lot_number = mtln.lot_number
8699: AND gmlct.final_cost_flag = 1)

Line 8740: FROM GMF_MATERIAL_LOT_COST_TXNS gmlct

8736: AND mmt.transaction_source_type_id <> 5
8737: AND mmt.transaction_action_id NOT IN (15,22,6,2) /* PK added subinv Xfer */
8738: AND mtln.lot_number = nvl(p_lot_no,mtln.lot_number)
8739: AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1
8740: FROM GMF_MATERIAL_LOT_COST_TXNS gmlct
8741: WHERE gmlct.transaction_id = mmt.transaction_id /* ANTHIYAG Bug#5285726 07-Jun-2006 */
8742: AND gmlct.cost_type_id = l_cost_type_id
8743: AND gmlct.lot_number = mtln.lot_number
8744: AND gmlct.final_cost_flag = 1)

Line 8784: FROM GMF_MATERIAL_LOT_COST_TXNS gmlct

8780: AND mmt.inventory_item_id = lcig.inventory_item_id
8781: AND mmt.organization_id = lcig.organization_id
8782: AND mtln.lot_number = nvl(p_lot_no,mtln.lot_number)
8783: AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1
8784: FROM GMF_MATERIAL_LOT_COST_TXNS gmlct
8785: WHERE gmlct.transaction_id = mmt.transaction_id /* ANTHIYAG Bug#5285726 07-Jun-2006 */
8786: AND gmlct.cost_type_id = l_cost_type_id
8787: AND gmlct.lot_number = mtln.lot_number
8788: AND gmlct.final_cost_flag = 1)

Line 8827: FROM GMF_MATERIAL_LOT_COST_TXNS gmlct

8823: AND mmt.transaction_source_type_id IN (8,7,13)
8824: AND mmt.transaction_action_id IN (15,22)
8825: AND mtln.lot_number = nvl(p_lot_no,mtln.lot_number)
8826: AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1
8827: FROM GMF_MATERIAL_LOT_COST_TXNS gmlct
8828: WHERE gmlct.transaction_id = mmt.transaction_id /* ANTHIYAG Bug#5285726 07-Jun-2006 */
8829: AND gmlct.cost_type_id = l_cost_type_id
8830: AND gmlct.lot_number = mtln.lot_number
8831: AND gmlct.final_cost_flag = 1)

Line 9256: UPDATE gmf_material_lot_cost_txns

9252: AND lot_number = transaction_row.lot_number)
9253: RETURNING header_id INTO new_cost.header_id;
9254:
9255: -- B3486228 Also set the transaction qty to the residual
9256: UPDATE gmf_material_lot_cost_txns
9257: SET new_onhand_qty = l_residual_qty
9258: WHERE transaction_id = transaction_row.transaction_id /* ANTHIYAG Bug#5285726 07-Jun-2006 */
9259: AND cost_header_id = new_cost.header_id;
9260: END IF;