VEND_MAT_LONG in SRM 7

[former_member114630]

I currently have an OSS message out there awaiting a response, so I figured I would also try the forum for a better answer.

We are in the process of upgrading from SRM 4 to SRM 7. We have already upgraded the backend from ECC 6 to ECC 6 with EhP4. When we did the ECC upgrade, we made the necessary modifications based on several OSS notes so that the vendor catalog number comes over complete from SRM.

Now, those same notes are not working for SRM 7. We have followed the instructions on notes 488619, 826541, 1511126, and 455879 (just to name a few).

Has anyone else upgraded to SRM 7 with ECC 6, EhP4 and resolved the vendor catalog number issue?

Any help/direction would be greatly appreciated.

Monique Stephens

[Former Member]

Hi Monique

Could you please few more details about your problem. What exactly do you want to come from Catalog to SRM and then from SRM to ECC?

Regards

Virender singh

[former_member114630]

I would like for the entire catalog number to come across to SAP. From the Catalog to SRM, everything is fine. However, in the transfer to SAP, the vendor catalog number gets truncated. This is why we needed to add VEND_MAT_LONG because it will handle 35 characters. The default for IDNLF is 22 characters on SAP.

Maybe one day SAP and SRM will be in sync with character lengths for the exact same field name.

Monique Stephens

[Former Member]

Hi Monique

Did you complete the Text Mapping Configuration in SRM. It can be accessed in SRM> IMG> Cross Application Basic settings

In this configuration you map your text types in SRM documents to the text types in ECC Documents.

Regards

Virender Singh

[former_member114630]

This is not a text type. This is a specific field on the purchase requisition (vendor material number). The notes have worked in the past but it is not working for SRM 7.0.

Monique

[Former Member]

Ohh...

My bad... I took it to be text type.

Monique, as you are upgrading from SRM 4.0 to SRM 7.0, did you change your BAPI FMs to BAPI_PO_CREATE1, I am wondering if you are still using BAPI_PO_CREATE. There is a significant difference in the way SRM4.0 structures were handled and the way SRM7.0 structures are handle. In fact this change came in SRM 5.0.

Please use correct methods , parameters as per BAPI_PO_CREATE1 in this case. You may refer to SRM 5.0 release notes for more details in this area.

Regards

Virender Singh

[former_member114630]

We are actually creating the requisitions in the backend first, not the PO. Therefore, we are not using the BAPI you mentioned. We are using BAPI_REQUISITION_CREATE.

[Former Member]

Hi Monique

Use new BAPI BAPI_PR_CREATE and map SRM structures to respective PR fields afresh. It should solve your problem

Regards

Virender Singh

[former_member114630]

We figured out the issue. The structures were not set up correctly even though we looked at it several times.

Monique