cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Issue with address inconsistencies when synchronizing Employee to Business Partner

alvaro_provencio
Explorer
0 Kudos
1,262

Hi Gurus, I have been requested to solve an issue related to a BP in S4 on premise.

To give context: We had a BP not synchronized correctly with its employee number (from PA30).

Our functional team executed RSUID_REMOVE_FALSE_BP_ASGN to unlink them and when executing /SHCM/RH_SYNC_BUPA_EMPL_SINGLE to generate a new BP and link it with the employee number we received the following 2 error logs:

Message R1000 "Error_Time Dependency_Addresses ADVW_VALIDITY_ERROR"

Message R11245 "Error for validity periods of address usages"

I have checked the address' validity periods in the HR master (PA30) and the BP and they match, also I have checked BUT020, ADRC and PA0006 tables and they match too. 

Reading sap note 2578294, it suggests to review the path "Cross-Application Components=>SAP Business Partner=>Business Partner=>Basic Settings=>Address Determination" and make sure the address type XXDEFAULT is set on "Assign Transaction to Address Type", and it is. Also I have checked sap notes 2517507 and 2598468, but they cannot be implemented in the system. 

Going on, we have executed again /SHCM/RH_SYNC_BUPA_EMPL_SINGLE but with the flag "Override Banks, addresses and roles" and it gives us a different error log:

Message no. AM266 Personal address not deleted; other reference exists.

Searching for it I have found this blog: https://community.sap.com/t5/crm-and-cx-questions/bupa-del-error/qaq-p/10741420, it says that the error generally occurs for the addresses  of table BCST_CAM, I have checked it and there isn't any entry for the employee number, could that be the problem? Going trough note 835936, I have executed RSBCS_ADDRESS_REFERENCE, but it says that there isn't any reference. 

Does someone know what else can I do? Or how should I proceed? 

Thank you in advance.

View Entire Topic
fran_h
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

Hello,

Can you check if installing notes 3382938 and 3459829 fix the issue?

alvaro_provencio
Explorer
0 Kudos
Hi fran, thank you for your quick response
alvaro_provencio
Explorer
0 Kudos
Note 3382938 can't be implemented in the system either, and about 3459829, I have checked V_TB008U and there is an entry already for address type XXDEFAULT, so I understand the note won't solve it, right?