How to determine Attribute and Type 3 entity type while extending the data model

[#1]

Hello Experts,

I have to extend the data model for material MDG.Do anyone have an idea why Table T438A and Table T439A as dipcted below have different relationship to the MARC table one type3 entity(T438A) and other one as an attribute(T439A). I understood that when there is an additional key field in the type1 or type 4 entities, type3 entity should be created for that key field, so there is a justification for T001W and T024D  but not for the case mentioned above I tried to find about this but didn't get any relevant information.

Please help me understand.

Thanks and Regards,

Prateek Agarwal

Any helpful answers will be rewarded.

[former_member247058 · Accepted solution]

You are right, there is no need to specify DISMM as referencing entity, it could be a simple attribute of the extended MARC entity, indeed. As you stated, this is only necessary for T024D where you have an aggregated key (WERKS and DISPO).

Regards,

Hans-Ulrich von Helmolt

[former_member193350 · Accepted solution]

Hi Hans-Ulrich,

Thanks for your help.

As similar case mentioned above, I would like to extend MM data model with MARC table fields(EKGRP, WERKS, MMSTA)  they have only one key field in the check tables same as the field name, So shall I proceed by just creating attributes in custom MARC entity type for these filelds or do i need to create Type 3 entities.

Thanks and Regards,

Prateek Agarwal

[former_member193350 · Accepted solution]

One more question, The screenshot which i posted above is from Ehp5 MDG Extensibility guide and the below one is from Ehp6 MDG Extensibility guide. Both are depicting the same, so could you please confirm that if I go with attributes instead of Type3 entity for DISLS and DISMM fields will not create any problem.

Regards

Prateek Agarwal

[former_member247058 · Accepted solution]

Yes, I do confirm (whenever there is a check-table behind a data element with a simple key), but in fact, you can use both methods, I personally would prefer the simpler one if you ask me.

Apparently this has been migrated in the guides, we should add a sentence to make this clear.

Regards,

Hans-Ulrich von Helmolt