2009 Apr 01 7:09 AM
Hi Folks,
I am just wondering as to why does this authorization object(S_TRANSLAT) appear for SCC4 although it is not contained in SU24 for this transaction, but it seems to be generated in the profile generator....
Is there something about this authorization object that makes it exceptional?
Best Wishes,
CP
2009 Apr 01 7:47 AM
Hi Chinmaya,
scc4 is a parameter transaction for sm30. Therefore have a look in SU24 for SM30. there you will find S_TRANSLAT with Proposal=Yes (or in lower releases CM).
b.rgds, Bernhard
2009 Apr 01 7:47 AM
Hi Chinmaya,
scc4 is a parameter transaction for sm30. Therefore have a look in SU24 for SM30. there you will find S_TRANSLAT with Proposal=Yes (or in lower releases CM).
b.rgds, Bernhard
2009 Apr 01 8:10 AM
Hi Bernhard,
Many thanks for the clarification, I wasn't aware of this fact!
Best Wishes,
CP
2009 Apr 01 8:27 AM
Just a little side note: If you maintain the SU24 proposals for SCC4 (the parameter transaction) it will override the proposals of that object which come from SM30 (the core transaction).
For this reason it makes sense to maintain the parameter transaction data and propose only the minimum required by the core transaction...
Cheers,
Julius