Skip to Content

Customizing changes with Workbench Transport Request

Feb 07, 2017 at 01:58 PM


avatar image
Former Member

Hello gurus,

I do not understand why customizing changes, despite having client field in their tables, sometimes, require a Workbench Transport Request instead of a Customizing one.

For instance: View 'V_T045T' has got 'MANDT' field. Its table can be modified in SPRO -> Financial Accounting -> Bank Accounting -> Business Transactions -> Bill of Exchange Transactions -> Bill of exchange Receivable -> Present Bill of Exchange Receivable at Bank -> Define DME User IDs.

Delivery class of this view is 'C', and its only involved table too.

I always thought that Workbench TRs could not have 'MANDT' field in their table records.

Can anyone explain me what am I missing? Which trigger causes to force user to create a Workbench instead of a Customizing?

Thanks a lot!,


10 |10000 characters needed characters left characters exceeded
* Please Login or Register to Answer, Follow or Comment.

1 Answer

Raymond Giuseppi
Feb 07, 2017 at 02:34 PM

Check object definition with transaction SOBJ, is the flag "client specific" set (for info on my systems it creates a Customizing request)


Show 5 Share
10 |10000 characters needed characters left characters exceeded

In SOBJ, I think it's more the "object category" CUST or SYST.


CUST Customizing with client -> customizing request, CUSY Customizing without client -> workbench request. Both field category and client are dependant?


SYST -> workbench request, APPL -> customizing request

When the TMG runs the first time, the object category is defaulted according to the delivery class of the table: C -> CUST or CUSY depending on table is client-dependent or not, A -> APPL, S -> SYST, etc. It's then possible to change the object category manually and I don't think there is a check except that SYST is mandatory if delivery class is S.

Former Member

Thank you so much for your contributions.

What I do not understand is: Why is it defined to require a Workbench order instead of a Customizing one?

I do not find any logic in this.

Thanks again!,



It's probably useful for many little things. My 2 cents:

  • Organization (for instance: displaying only transport requests containing repository objects)
  • Authorization (S_TRANSPRT object; for instance: developers should not be allowed to create customizing requests)