Lesson 1 of 5
Scenario sets
10 min
Payables and receivables look simple on a process map: an invoice comes in or goes out, and later cash moves. The defects hide in the variations. A payment term that grants a discount, a supplier who sends a credit memo, a customer who pays 80 percent of an invoice and disputes the rest. A good AP and AR test is not one happy path. It is a scenario set: a base path plus a deliberate selection of variants that together cover what the business actually does.
This lesson uses Contoso Motor Co.'s finance stream. Company code 1710 buys rotors from supplier Lakeside Components and sells alternators to customer Great Lakes Fleet Services. Dan, the finance process owner, has asked Priya, the test lead, for AP and AR scenario sets he can sign off before the Q3 go-live.
Start from the two base paths
- Supplier invoicePO-based invoice from Lakeside Components (MIRO or the Create Supplier Invoice app) or a non-PO invoice (FB60)
- Open payableJournal entry credits the supplier; the item is open with a due date from the payment terms
- Payment proposalThe automatic payment program selects due items and proposes what to pay
- Payment runPayment documents clear the open items and a payment medium is created
- Bank clearingThe bank statement confirms the outflow and clears the bank clearing account
The AR base path mirrors it: a customer invoice (usually from SD billing, sometimes posted directly with FB70) creates an open receivable for Great Lakes Fleet Services; the customer pays; the incoming payment is posted manually (F-28 or the Post Incoming Payments app), from an electronic bank statement, or from a lockbox file, and clears the open item. Between invoice and payment sits dunning for anything overdue.
Choose variants on purpose
List the dimensions that change the outcome, then pick values for each. For AP and AR the dimensions that matter most are payment terms, the amount actually paid, blocks, document type and currency. Each variant should change a posting, a due date, a clearing result or a control. If two variants produce the same journal entries and the same open item result, keep one.
| Variant | AP example (Lakeside Components) | AR example (Great Lakes Fleet Services) | What it proves |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cash discount taken | Terms 2% 10, net 30; paid on day 8 | Customer pays on day 9 and deducts 2% | Discount amount and cash discount account are right; item fully cleared |
| Discount period missed | Paid on day 25 | Customer deducts 2% on day 20 | AP pays net; AR treats the deduction as a short payment, not a discount |
| Partial payment | Pay 6,000 of a 10,000 invoice | Customer pays 6,000 of 10,000 | Invoice stays open with a linked partial payment item |
| Residual item | Not typical for AP | Clear the invoice and leave a 4,000 residual item with a reason code | Original cleared; new open item with reason and correct due date |
| Payment block | Invoice blocked for price variance | Not applicable | Blocked item is excluded from the run and shows in the exception list |
| Credit memo | Lakeside credits 500 for damaged rotors | Contoso credits 300 for a pricing error | Credit memo offsets the right invoice; due date follows the invoice reference |
Common AP and AR variants and the result each one proves.
Partial payments and residual items deserve a moment, because testers confuse them. With a partial payment, the original invoice stays open and the payment is posted as a separate open item linked to it; both clear later. With a residual item, the original invoice is cleared and a new open item is created for the difference. Which one Contoso uses is a policy decision, and the scenario must check the one the business chose, including the reason code that tells collections why the difference exists.
| After the customer pays 6,000 of 10,000 | Partial payment | Residual item |
|---|---|---|
| Original invoice | Still open (10,000) | Cleared |
| New open items | Payment item (-6,000) linked to the invoice | Residual item (4,000) with a reason code |
| Net balance on the account | 4,000 | 4,000 |
| Due date of what remains | The invoice's due date | Set by the residual item rules; check it |
| What dunning sees | Invoice and partial payment together | The residual item only |
Rank the edge cases
You cannot test every combination, so rank the variants by how often they happen and how much damage a defect would do. A missed cash discount on every Lakeside invoice is frequent and costly. A one-time supplier paid by wire in a foreign currency is rare but can lose real money. Both belong in the set; a rare, low-impact variant may not.
What would you do?
Priya's draft AP scenario set has 40 scenarios. Thirty-two are standard PO invoices for different rotor quantities, all with the same payment terms. Dan asks whether the set is ready. What should Priya change?
- Build AP and AR tests as scenario sets: a base path plus variants that each change an outcome.
- Key variants: cash discount taken and missed, partial payment, residual item, payment block, credit memo, foreign currency.
- Know whether the business uses partial payments or residual items, and test that choice.
- Rank variants by frequency and impact; always test the high-impact ones.
Check your understanding · not graded
Lesson check
1. What makes a variant worth adding to an AP or AR scenario set?
2. A customer pays 6,000 of a 10,000 invoice and the clerk posts a partial payment. What does the open item list show?
3. Which variant belongs in the 'always test, several times' quadrant for Contoso?
4. Why write the expected result before running a scenario?