2010 Oct 19 7:26 AM
Hi, friends!
I have the following issue. Could anyone tell me why in SAP ECC 6.0 the table ESLL has less fields than in SAP ECC 5.0? The point is that, in SAP 6.0, there are function modules that references some of those missing fields and get dump after execution. I´ve been looking for SAP notes and I have not found out anything. Could anyone help me?
Specifically, I find one of the differences in the structure ESLL_PLUS, for instance.
Thanks in advance, family!
2010 Oct 19 7:48 AM
I suppose that during one of your last few upgrades or patch installations something went wrong. Check logs!
And compare all systems in your landscape, that is development, test and production.
I have seen a case where something like that happened, but only in production.
regards
2010 Oct 19 8:06 AM
And how could I be able to check those patch and upgrades installations logs, Joe? Because I don´t see anything wrong in versions management.
By the way, I have the same structures in development and test environment. In a little while, I´ll check out production.
Thanks for your reply
2010 Oct 19 9:40 AM
First I would go to transaction SE11, and in tab attributes check when and by whom the last change of that table was done.
Then go to transaction SPAM and look if on this very date there was some support package applied, or go to transaction STMS and see which transports where applied on this date.
This may be the wrong approach though, in case there wasn't any change, but should have been.
You might want to contact the basis person responsible for patches and transports, in case you aren't this person yourself.
regards
2010 Oct 19 9:56 AM
Well, here we go.
I´ve just checked out what you have metioned, and nothing wrong. Neither trough SPAM, nor STMS (in fact, I have no authorization to execute it). As you said, that´s right: I´m not the SAP Basis responsible :|. Anyway, I´m in charge to clear this issue.
However, I´ve been searching and I´ve found out that the problem is focused in structure ESLL_BOS (integrated in ESLL table), which is deactivated in my system, with status "new". In attributes, I´ve seen that there is a field named "Switch" which has to do with the SAP Switch Framework and Enhancement Framework. Any idea now? Help will be VERY apreciated.
Thank you very much, Joe
2010 Oct 19 1:14 PM
Can you activate ESLL_BOS? If not, there's probably an error in the structure...check activation log if activate step fails.
2010 Oct 19 3:06 PM
That´s the point. I mean, I don´t know the consequences of that activation. By now, I´m investigating the switch I was talking about before, in the Business Framework context, to ensure that everything is going right if I activate it.
The problem is I don´t understand very much all this whole thing about Business Framework and so on... that´s why I´m not sure about activate the structure. I hope I was clear.
Thanks for your respond! I´d do apreciate help about this...
2010 Oct 19 9:09 PM
Can you please check closely, I actually see 7 more fields in ESSL table in ECC6.0 (108 fields) than in ECC5.0 (101 fields).
Can you list down which fields you are looking for that you think are missing?
I have checked ESLL_PLUS, it seems to be the same in ECC 5.0 and ECC 6.0..
There are two new structures in ECC6.0 ESLL_PEROP_STY and OILESLLDATA which doesnt exist in ECC5.0
Also if you just upgraded recently to ECC 6.0 check SPDD logs.
Also check out SWITCH framework, ESLL_PLUS (ESLL_BOS) may be linked to some new frame work that you did not SWITCH ON... Just a thought.
-- SMA
Edited by: S M A on Oct 19, 2010 10:21 PM
2010 Oct 20 7:32 AM
Definitely I have different fields. What you´re saying to me has nothing to do with I can see in my SAP 6.0.
But tell me, am I wrong when I say that I can check that switch out throughout transactions SWF*? Yesterday, I was looking through that way, but I haven´t been able to tailor a clear conclusion... to be precise, I was looking frame work data related to FM BS01_MM_QUOTATION_CREATE and structures ESLL/ESLL_BOS/ESLL_PLUS, the objects in conflict. I keep on searching, mate... thanks for your reply!