05-01-2009 11:37 AM
When running transaction QS41 in QA the message 'Client 211 has status 'not modifiable' is received, however in the production system changes can be made directly using QS41. I've checked the settings in SCC4 and they are identical. Can anyone suggest why the clients differ please?
Thanks
Anthea
05-04-2009 9:46 AM
Please double check whether the client role (USR02-CCCORACTIV) are identical.
If not, set it to "Test" in your QAS system.
The current settings flag is also a possibility, but then you have an inconsistency in your view objects.
Cheers,
Julius
05-01-2009 11:47 AM
I think the delivery class of the tables touched by this program can be different on the respective systems. Or the system responds differently based on client settings for productive clients.
This is not really a security issue but I can't think of the most appropriate forum for it......
May I suggest a search on the term "delivery class" on SAP Help?
Edit: removed link that looked promising but wasn't.
Edited by: Jurjen Heeck on May 1, 2009 12:48 PM
05-01-2009 11:02 PM
Hi,
Please check SE06 tcode both production and QA. Look for each status for software component.
Pleas elt me kknw if you need any further information.
Regards,
Phani.
05-04-2009 2:49 AM
Further to Add,
This can be due to the custom setting of Customising Obj.
Check in following Way,
GO to SPRO -> find the node for Catalogue Main. -> select the node and check the IMG activity.
You may see the Customisation objects, which should be V_QPGR_CL.
This may be defined as "current setting" this may allow to maintain in Production for transaction QS41, and behave differently due to settings defined here.
Please also check with the Functional Guys to confirm why this is behaving this way as there may be requirement from Business process point of view.
Edited by: Kinjar Patel on May 4, 2009 11:50 AM
05-04-2009 9:46 AM
Please double check whether the client role (USR02-CCCORACTIV) are identical.
If not, set it to "Test" in your QAS system.
The current settings flag is also a possibility, but then you have an inconsistency in your view objects.
Cheers,
Julius