ADDR_GROUP is somehow not syndicated to ECC

[Erdal_Şimşek]

Hi all,

I set up a scenario containing MDM 7.1, PI 7.1 EHP 1 and three ECC 6.0 systems that handles a customer master data flow. The direction from ECC -> PI -> MDM works fine so far (DEBMDM). The Syndication part (MDM -> PI -> ECC) is great (MDM Adapter is cool!) in terms of updating already existing data in ECC. However when it comes to centrally creation of customer data in MDM then the problem is that the record is not created in ECC. Sending to ECC works but I can see that in ECC the ADDR_GROUP field is empty (I have set it to BP in syndicator ). When I debug in WE19 ( FM: MAP2I_BAPIAD1VL_TO_ADDR1_VAL ) the following statement is not set:

MOVE BAPIAD1VL-ADDR_GROUP

TO ADDR1_VAL-ADDR_GROUP.

This is the reason why in WE02 I get the error message: 'Status: Application document not posted - Pleas specify an address group'. In case I set it to BP during debugging the idoc is processed correctly and the customer created. I am using the standard export map DEBMDM06_R3.

My question is as simple as straight forward: why is the ADDR_GROUP field not sent to ECC although I have set a default value for this in syndicator? The setup in PI should be ok as well.

Thanks!

BR,

Erdal.

[michael_theis · Accepted solution]

Hi Erdal,

ADDR_GROUP is part of the E1BPAD1VL segment. Please check the other elements of this segement: is there any field mapped? OR do you use static values only? If the latter one is the case, you're running into a common trap of the Syndicator. You need at least one mapped field so that Syndicator creates the segment... As a workarround I'd suggest the following: Clone the Language keys of the Customer record. Map it to the LANGU_CREA element of E1BPAD1VL. This should ensure the creation of the complete segment.

Best regards

Michael

[Erdal_Şimşek · Accepted solution]

Hi Michael,

I had just the ADDR_GROUP field set as static text (i.e. BP). The other fields of that segment were not touched for the time beeing. This really is some sort of Syndicator "trap" and perhaps should be solved in the future;) Thank you for the hint!

BR,

Erdal