TOBJ entries missing from upgrade dev and test systems

[Former Member]

Hi,

We are in the process of ECC Upgrade from 4.7 to ECC 6.0 and upgraded our dev and test systems. We missing some SAP defined object entries in TOBJ table from dev and test. Because of this some of the roles getting transport errors if the roles contain those missing objects. We tried to transport the missing entries but we don't see any provision for that. Does any one through an idea to move those missing entries from dev to test. Not sure we will get same error in production. This table updates during upgrade and may be we missed some thing in test as though we followed the same upgrade process for both systems.

Thank you

Venkat

[Former Member]

Possibly you are no longer licensed for components which these objects are called from in their concepts.

In that case the ability to start the component objects should be removed as well.

Of course if some Z-programs checked these objects or SAP's own "package concept" extended syntax checks did not respect them then you might have problems.

This should normally only apply to manual authorization instances, as if you had upgraded the roles and regenerated them, then you would not have this problem (in the roles).

It tells us something about how you or someone else without any training have built these roles (or subsequently mucked them up...)...

When reading stuff like this, I am always of two minds...

1) SAP should make the concepts simpler and more intuitive to use without "cowboy" activities allowed by users with SAP_ALL etc.

2) Customers should bleed for their own sins for not training people appropriatly (here, faking CV's is also ma major pest!).

It is always a bit of a cat & mouse game and ends up in forums such as SDN in the long run.

Some of it might also have become "available" to be used by SAP (I believe it was the 6.20 upgrade which installed everything...).

Real bugger. I would accept it and test as best you can. You can also compare "where.used-lists" and "code scans" before and after the upgrade to see whether it is used by foreign repository objects.

The scan is more reliable here, as sometimes the object name itself is a variable from a data declaration or condition which you cannot see in the "procedural" code.

Cheers,

Julius

[dieter_goedel]

Hello Venkat,

can you please give some samples for the missing objects? In general the authorization objects should not be lost and I never heard about such a problem before. Please give us 3 or 10 samples. Best regards,

Dieter.