cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

"Partner Delivery Point Not Found" in SUS Purchase Order

Former Member
0 Kudos

Working on SRM5.0, I have created Purchase Orders in SRM which have been transmitted to SUS via XI. The PO's appear in SUS, but when I try to process the PO as the vendor (in order to send a PO response / goods confirmation etc back to SRM), the following error message appears "Partner Delivery Point not found" and the process can go no further.

When looking at the partner functions that are maintained in the SUS

PO, I can see a Sold-to party and a Goods recipient that have both a

Business Partner Number and an Address. However, the Delivery Point

partner has no Business Partner number, but does have an Address.

I am fairly certain there is no problem with the SRM shopping cart / PO. One of the examples I have looked at is as follows:

Cart and PO have the following partners maintained:

Requester - 509

Goods Recipient - 509

Delivery Point - 491

Location - 511

Vendor - 100122

The XML message sent via XI for this cart / PO has the following partners (confusing use of naming!):

Buyer - 491

Seller - 100122

Product Recipient - 509

Bill-to - 491 (Although same BP number as delivery point above, address is not the same and does not appear to come from any of the BP's mentioned above!)

Ship-to - 511 (Although same BP number as location above, address is not the same and does not appear to come from any of the BP's mentioned above and is same address as the Bill-to)

The SUS PO (attached) has the following partners:

Sold-to - 491

Goods Recipient - 509

Delivery Point - (Blank BP Number but address appears to come from business partner 491 as it is the same as the sold-to address above)

My understanding of this 'mapping' between the 3 components is as follows:

In the SRM shopping cart / PO you need the partners Requester, Goods Recipient, Delivery Point, Location and Vendor.

In the SUS PO you need at least Sold-to party, Goods Recipient and Delivery Point.

When SRM generates the XML message for the PO (to go to SUS via XI), it maps the business partners from the SRM PO to business partners in the XML file.

When SUS receives the XML message from XI, it maps the business partners from the XML file to the appropriate place in the SUS PO

Looking at my example, it is not obvious how the partners map from SRM to XML message in XI to SUS and nowhere in the XML message is there an address maintained without a business partner number so it appears that the business partner number is being 'lost' by SUS as it creates the PO.

I have searched OSS extensively and found very few messages which seem relevant (744231 looked promising, but has already been applied according to our patch level).

Any pointers???

Thanks,

Matt

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi

<b>Please go through the following SAP OSS Notes as well, which will help -></b>

Note 723680 - Corrections in the mapping of SAP XML messages

Note 744231 - No locations and delivery addresses are transferred

<u>Related Notes</u>

Note 728629 - SRM 4.0 XML confirmation/invoice hierarchy items

Note 723594 - SRM 4.0 XML confirmation mapping error

Note 725895 - SUS 2.0 SP04 Patch for Java

Note 731037 - Converting SUS 1.0 and SUS 2.0 documents to SUS 3.0

Note 679671 SUS 2.0 WPS SP03 Patch 4 / SP04 Patch 6

Note 895217 - SUS30: SUS not integrated with CUA currently

Note 825820 - SRM40-SUS: Follow-on error when converting purchase orders

Note 782482 - Document texts are missing after conversion to SUS 3.0

Do let me know.

Regards

- Atul

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi there,

SAP came back to me with a response as follows:

Dear Customer,

I see that you are using SRM and SUS in one client. Even though the

BP 491 already exists in the SUS system as this is a one client

scenario, the company with BP 491 must have an entry in the mapping

table bbp_sus_bpcmpmap.

To do this please run TRX BBP_SP_COMP_INI to map the company with BP

491 to the SUS system.

This did infact resolve the problem.