cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

GTS Upgrade issue (7.2 to 10.0) - Business partner created in treasury, not gets automatically created in GTS .

0 Kudos

Hi Gurus,

We upgraded our GTS system from 7.2 to 10.0. Before upgrade when a business partner was created in treasury system using BUP1 t code it automatically got created in GTS system with entries in both BUT000 and /SAPSLL/ADRCON table. But after upgrade business partner in treasury system gets created with a dump. Also when checked in GTS tables BUT000 and /SAPSLL/ADRCON, entry can only be found in BUT000 table and not in /SAPSLL/ADRCON table.


Please suggest if any configuration requires to be maintained for this in upgraded system. Also  If anyone has any idea about how to solve this isssue, Kindly guide us.

Regards

Shilpi

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (2)

Answers (2)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Shilpi,

The problem you're facing is sometimes an issue while transfer of partners from ECC to GTS or during upgrade. Have you checked whether Table PNTBP is populated or not. My gues would be "NO". If that is the case I would suggest you to go into GTS & enter T.Code SE11 & then enter Table BUT000 & enter the table in debug mode (/h) & see whether the BP is available or not. Or if it is available has it been linbked to some other customer no. from the ECC side. If that is the case then, set an delete logic on the BP field & save the table. Next step would be to push the ECC customer once more. This should solve your problem.

If it persists, then you would have to check the RFC logic for the same. Let us know on the solution if you have already found one

Regards,

SS

former_member357054
Participant
0 Kudos

Hi Sayan/Dave,

First of all, thanks for your valuable replies. Just wanted to inform you that we have soved the issue and Shilpi will be marking this thread as closed.

Let me put some details of the changes we did in order to resolve this issue. As we told before, the partners with which we were facing the issue in transfer to GTS were custom designed partners unlike the standard partners like Vendor, Customer etc. The addidtional codings and validations in the upgraded version of GTS 10.0 inside the FM BAPI_BUPA_FS_CREATE_FROM_DATA was haulting the program flow to the subsequent FM '/SAPSLL/SPL_SCREENING_BP'. This is the FM which actually screens the partner and update the tables '/SAPSLL/PNTBP' and other address tables.

We have called this FM explicitly in a cusotm function module after the bapi commit of 'BAPI_BUPA_FS_CREATE_FROM_DATA'. This resolved the issue.

Thanks and Regards,

Dhan

 

former_member215181
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Shilpi,

What error is reported in the dump (ST22)?

Regards,

Dave

0 Kudos

Hi Dave,

The dump is a custom dump.

The automatic creation of Business partners in GTS happens by calling a RFC API_BUPA_FS_CREATE_FROM_DATA (The remote call is being made from

custom program). Address details are sent in export parameter

addressdata of the BAPI.The table BUT000 is getting populated with

corect data where as the table /sapsll/adrcon is not getting populated

with the address data. The fields that needs to be captured are :

Street, postal codes, city, country and region.

We have tried the same scenario in non-upgraded GTS system(version 7.2)

and it worked as expected. The tables BUT000 and /SAPSLL/ADRCON are

getting populated with required details.

former_member215181
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Shilpi,

Please use Transaction ST22 to refer to the dump.  What cause is mentioned there?  If applicable, please provide the program and line number pointed to by the analysis.

Thanks & regards,
Dave

0 Kudos

Hi Dave,

The error is - The error occurred during an RFC call to another system. Program name and lie number not mentioned.

Thanks,

Shilpi

0 Kudos

Hi Dave,

The error is - The error occurred during an RFC call to another system. Program name and lie number not mentioned.

Thanks,

Shilpi

former_member215181
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Shilpi,

It sounds like your developer is not handling the RFC errors correctly in the ERP program.  But anyway, please see if there is a corresponding dump in the GTS system for the same date/time.  Maybe an exception is being raised there?

If there is no dump in the GTS system, then please re-check the parameters of the RFC call - although I can't see any obvious differences between the 7.2 and 10.0 versions of the Function Module interface.

Regards,

Dave

former_member357054
Participant
0 Kudos

Hi Dave,

Many thanks on your reply. I am Shilpi's colleague and thought will provide some more details on this issue.

The scenario here is that we have some custom designed partners in our CFM feeder system. Since there is no standard GTS mechanism available to transfer these partners to GTS, we are calling the standard BAPI ' 

BAPI_BUPA_FS_CREATE_FROM_DATA' from a custom program in the CFM system. Now when you call this BAPI and once the subsequent COMMIT is done, entries get created in 2 main tables in GTS. These tables are BUT000 and /SAPSLL/ADRCON. However after the upgrade we noticed that entries are getting created in BUT000 but not in /SAPSLL/ADRCON.

No need to bother about the dump because that is a result of the above caused on the custom program.

Thanks,

Dhan

former_member215181
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Dhan,

First: please check SAP Note 1552032, and implement if applicable.

Second: my suggestion would be to run your ERP program in "debug" mode, and stop it just before the RFC call.  Then note the data to be sent, and enter that same data manually into the GTS Function Module in "test" mode (Transaction SE37).  Run in "debug", and see where the problem is.

Regards,

Dave

former_member357054
Participant
0 Kudos

Hi Dave,

The suggested note is not relevant for the issue we are facing. We have debugged the code and found that there are some additional checks in the standard FM '/SAPSLL/BP_ADDRESS_MAINTAIN' in the upgraded GTS version. These checks were not present in our older versions. We have raised a message with SAP on this and are awating their suggestions. Anyways, many thanks for your time and help.

Thanks and Regards,

Dhan

former_member215181
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Dhan,

No problem - I hope you get a good answer from SAP.

I guess you (or rather Shilpi) should mark the question as "answered" now.

Regards,

Dave