OSSNote 164653 - Customer Master

[Former Member]

The Abap already downloaded OSS Note 164653 which says:

"Two customer master records point to the

same address number. As a consequence, the same address is used for the two master records....so on"

Now I need to test the OSS notes in QA. <b>How do I test this?</b>

<i>obs: I already went to tcode=SNOTE where I've verified the note was completely downloaded.</i>

Thks & Rgds,

Barbara

[Former Member]

After downloading have you implemented the note? If the note is implemented the status should change to "Note implemented".

-Kiran

[Former Member]

Hi,

Implement the note using the menu option 'Implement note', once the note is implemented, you can test by creating the customers with the same address number and check,

Hope this helps,

Rgds,

[Former Member]

Hello,

Thanks for your help.

Ok...I will create a Custumer with same address number. What do I need to check then?

Thanks,

Barbara

[Former Member]

Hi,

First download the notes uisng the SNOTE transaction, select the NOte and then from menu SAP note =>Implement Sap Note (Ctrl+F1).

Regards

vijay

[Former Member]

The OSSNote 164653 is already downloaded and implemented. That is fine.

What I need is to make a functional test. However I do not what type of test I need to do to check if the OSS Notes fixed the issue.

[Former Member]

This is an excerpt from the note 164653. Try replicating the steps below and see if you get the error. If not the note has solved your problem.

Two possible error causes have been found:

1. The account group is changed for a customer or vendor (Transaction XD07/XK07). If

this activity is cancelled for the customer/vendor affected because the change

chosen is not valid, for example, and without exiting the transaction another

customer/vendor is then changed immediately and successfully to another account

group, then the system, by mistake, assigns the address number of the master

record processed in the first step to the customer/vendor.

2. Creation of a customer/vendor as described in the cause of Note 446969.

-Kiran