Skip to main content
Solved

CTO: How to apply a configuration rule to a by‑product without getting negative quantity errors in shop order?

  • April 21, 2026
  • 1 reply
  • 28 views

Forum|alt.badge.img+6

Hello,

I am working with Configure‑to‑Order (CTO) in IFS Cloud and I am trying to dynamically calculate the quantity of a by‑product in the shop order, based on the quantity of the main product.

The number of by‑products should depend on the produced quantity of the main product.
For example:

Main product quantity By‑product quantity
1 1
2 1
3 1
4 1
5 2
6 2
7 3
8 3
9 3
10 3

This logic is implemented using a CTO Configuration Structure Rule, where:

 

  • A configuration formula is used to set the Quantity per Assembly
  • Test formula gives the expected (positive) result

 

When I release the Customer Order (Supply Type = Shop Order), I get the following error message:

“Calculation of quantity required for produced part <by‑product> has resulted in a negative value”

What is confusing is:

  • The formula result is positive
  • The same approach works for normal components
  • The issue only occurs when the component is a by‑product

 

  • Is it supported in IFS Cloud CTO to use a Configuration Structure Rule to dynamically calculate the quantity of a by‑product?
  • If so, how should this be modeled to avoid negative quantity validation errors in the shop order?
  • Or is the recommended/best‑practice approach to keep by‑products static and handle variable output in another way?

Any guidance, design patterns, or official constraints around CTO + by‑products would be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards, 
Willem

Best answer by Jonas Waern

Hi Willem,

The business scenario you mention is valid and should be ok to use, so I suggest that you create a ticket for this to be sent into Unified support and R&D for further investigations.

 

Regards

Jonas Waern

1 reply

Forum|alt.badge.img+2
  • Do Gooder (Employee)
  • Answer
  • April 23, 2026

Hi Willem,

The business scenario you mention is valid and should be ok to use, so I suggest that you create a ticket for this to be sent into Unified support and R&D for further investigations.

 

Regards

Jonas Waern