User record showing up in USR02 table and not in USER_ADDR table.

[Former Member]

Hi Experts,

In one of our SAP systems, the user record is showing up in USR02 table and the same record not showing up in USER_ADDR table even though user has first name and last name maintained in SU01. Can any one know how to pull those missing records in USER_ADDR from USR02? Because some of the work flow activities look for user data in USER_ADDR table not from USR02 and we are unable to add those users to assign some work flow items.

Appreciate your help in this regard.

Thanks very much in advance

Venkat Battula

[Former Member]

There are programs to do consistency checks and synchhronize address data.

I think you are looking for RSADRCK2 (or one of the related programs).

Cheers,

Julius

[Former Member]

Hi Julius,

Thanks for looking into this. I already run this RSADRCK2 and some other address check programs. But its not missing records from USR02 to USER_ADDR but showing up number of users in each address object. I am looking for any program that pulls the missing data from USR02 and update USER_ADDR.

Very much appreciate for your help.

Thank you

Venkat

[former_member204634]

Hi Venkat

Check table USCOMPANY - it contains valid company addresses which are maintained as per SUCOMP; then compare USR02 with user_addr; for those users missing in user_addr; check their company address assignment as per table usr21 if their address number is one of those which are contained in table uscompany otherwise its invalid - and this may be one of the reasons why these users are not showing up in user_addr. Hope this helps

Best Regards

Prashant

[Former Member]

Hi Prashanth,

Looks like this is not issue as I see all address numbers of the missing users that exist in USR21 exists in address table also USCOMPANY table. I think I am sure address number ranges are mismatched but I am not sure how to fix this issue. May be some program might exist to fix these things. Anyway I am opening customer message with SAP and see how they respond.

Appreciate your help

Thank you

Venkat

[Bernhard_SAP]

Hello Venkat,

in most cases the report from note 499997 helps.

I suppose, what Prashanth meant is the new functionality to search for company adresses as well in the F4 of SU01, which can cause problems now, if the user adress number differs from the assigned uscompany adress number.

With the latest version of note 1601232 a z-report is provided to repair such inconsistencies.

b.rgds, Bernhard

Edited by: Bernhard Hochreiter on Feb 28, 2012 2:14 PM

[former_member204634]

Hi Bernhard and Venkat

The problem I faced recently in one of SAP Systems was as Bernhard rightly pointed out related to F4 search for users in SU01. But I checked usr02 entries and user_addr entries and there was a huge discrepancy between them. For users with user_addr entry were listed in F4 search. Upon analyzing address tables of users without user_addr entries it became clear that such users had invalid company address assigned to them (maybe because system was removed from CUA and all those company address went defunct in the local system - I have not investigated the exact cause) - hence I had to reassign all these a valid company code as per table USCOMPANY and that did the trick and all these users were now listed in user_addr and were available for search via f4 in SU01. I ran report RSADRCK2 and it only added two users into user_Addr and those two users were DDIC and SAP* and note 499997 did not help either. Nice to know that a note (1601232) exists for such scenarios - thanks for the info - will check it. Would like to add that SQL trace helped a lot in identifying the root cause

Hope this helps as a side topic to this thread

EDIT - P.S: Venkat if you suggest that this is number range issue - then did a client copy got messed up ? I can associate such cases due to incorrect/incomplete client copy and you can find more details in appropriate transactions storing client copy log (SCC3, SM21) to identify the tables disturbed; address tables in particular.

Please keep us posted on the resolution ..thanks !!

BR

Prashant

Edited by: Prashant Tripathi on Feb 28, 2012 6:53 PM

[Former Member]

Hi Prashanth & Bernhard,

SAP recommended 499997 and I applied that but that didn't work. Looks like this note 1601232 may fix this issue. But I see this is already taken care basis releases 702, 720, 730 and 731. My company SAP database environment suppors all 702, 720 and 730. So still we need to pull that attched report and run or it is not needed for these versions, does SAP given any other standard report to take care of this?

Thank you

Venkat

Edited by: Venkata Battula on Feb 28, 2012 7:26 PM

[Former Member]

Hi Bernhard & Prashanth,

Note 1601232 resolved this issue. I tried to award full points to both of you and I awarded Bernhard first and then tried to Prashanth but its not allwed to award full points to Prashanth as already full points awarded to Bernhard and awarded 6 points to Prashanth.

Thank you very much for all your help

Venkat