‎2007 Dec 17 7:54 AM
Dear all,
I am a basis guy, performing upgrade from 4.6c to ECC6.0. During the ACT_700 phase I am facing the two errors in the shadow instance.
Basically two tables are not activated. But while activating the table I get the below errors:
1. Table : TXW_GLACC
Check view J_1I_EWT_RETURN (DDIC/16.12.07/23:42)
Key field J_1IEWTCHLN-BELNR missing
All fields are evaluated as key field
Search help J_1IEWT_CHALLAN not inherited: Basis field J_1IEWTCHLN-AUGBL missing in view
View logging: active nametab header could not be read
View must be created in the database
View J_1I_EWT_RETURN is consistent
can someone brief me what I need to do to solve the above problem.
2. Table : J_1I_EWT_RETURN
Check table TXW_GLACC (DDIC/16.12.07/23:51)
Enhancement category 2 possible, but include or subty. not yet classified
Field KTOKS in table TXW_GLACC is specified twice. Please check
Check on table TXW_GLACC resulted in errors
I have checked but there the field KTOTS is not specified twice.
Can you pl help me to over come the above issue also.
Since I am a basis guy and we don't have our ABAP team yet, require your help in detail
Thanks & Regards
Senthil
‎2007 Dec 17 7:34 PM
The second issue is because SAP is adding KTOKS to the table and it already has that field in TXW_GLACC. Check for custom includes in the table. One of the custom includes might be having this field. You have to go ahead and delete this field from that include to make this table active.
‎2007 Dec 17 7:34 PM
The second issue is because SAP is adding KTOKS to the table and it already has that field in TXW_GLACC. Check for custom includes in the table. One of the custom includes might be having this field. You have to go ahead and delete this field from that include to make this table active.
‎2007 Dec 17 8:24 PM
Thank you, I have deleted the field KTOKS in the table structure (but not inside the include, as it is in the source system) and executed the same.
I have also written to OSS for asking the correct way
Thanks & Regards
Senthil
‎2007 Dec 17 9:22 PM
As per my knowledge,the proper way should be to delete it from the include and leave the field in the table structure as is.
Anyway, OSS might get back to you with the correct solution.