SCC1 error

[corinne_lofts]

Good afternoon everyone,

Could someone explain the following error to me and its implications? I don't seem to find any meaningful explaination.

A transport pulled using SCC1 from Client A to Client B seems to have worked apart from the following error:

"Program ended with error or warning, return code: W"

It seems that 5 tables were selected but only 4 processed.

I think the 'faulty' table might be V_T048.

I am unsure how to read the information received or how to find more info.

So far I have only viewed the log in SCC3.

Thank you for any suggestions.

Regards

Corinne

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hello Corrine,

First of all please check the detailed logs in SCC3.

I am not pretty sure but possibly this would have caused the issue:

View V_T048 and its tables T048 and T048T are both client independent tables. SCC1 would not be allowing you the import client independent data.

Sounds funny but you never know.

Can you please provide me the other 4 tables?

Regards.

Ruchit.

[corinne_lofts · Accepted solution]

Hi Ruchit,

The other tables are:

VARI

VARID

VARIS

VARIT

In the detailed log there is a line that says "View V_T048 is not client-specific"

Also, in the log analysis under the header "Warnings and errors" table V_T048 is discribed as a FI Component and a "Table cross-Client" Package.

As you said if the cross-client data are not tranportable then view/table V_T048 would be the cause of the error.

Being an error level 4 I would assume I can ignore it then??

What do you think?

My next question would be: how come it is added to to the transport in the first place? Would the following explanation makes sense:

Within the transport any object required is added, being cross-client or client-specific.

An error will occur if the transport is used within the same system using SCC1 but would not failed as it is moved to the next system.

If this transport is moved to the next system then view/table V_T048 would be updated/"refreshed" there, and I wouldn't expect any error in this case.

Would that be a correct conclusion?

Thank you

Corinne

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hello Corrine,

Now I more and more believe this is because of client independence factor.

All the other 4 tables are client dependent.

Yes you can ignore warnings. The reason is simple. What ever changes you will make for V_T048 in client A will automatically reflect in client B. So no transport needed.

Now coming to main question : "how come it is added to to the transport in the first place.".

Your self explanation is completely. I mean if client independent tables could not be included in transports then such changes would have never moved to subsequent systems. However such requirement doesnot exist is such cases for cross client transport.

I hope this helps.

Regards.

Ruchit.

[corinne_lofts · Accepted solution]

Thank you Ruchit,

Have a nice day!