WRPL and MARC inconsistency

[nmirandaghn]

Hi everyone, we've been using SAP for 10 months and we started using WRP1 for replenishment procurement 2 months ago. Fortunately we have resolved many issues we had for this transaction in order to get along with this process. However, we found a very interesting issue and is that we have some materiales to be replenished in a plant, but the interest thing here is that the material is not extended in the plant.

We checked tables WRPL and MARC and these particular materiales are inconsistent in both, for example; we have material M-01 with plant 1000 in WRPL but we don't have the same combination (M-01 with plant 1000) in MARC. We tried WRCK to fix inconsistencies but it responds that the material is no extended in table MARC.

¿Has anyone experienced this problem and knows how to solve it?

Thanks in advance.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hello,

The transaction WRCK creates missing entries of WRPL table by copyng data from MARC records. In your case, you have WRPL records with no corresponding MARC records.

You may create an LSMW script to generate site level views with required RP parameters or  create ABAP program to generate site level views using function BAPI_MATERIAL_MAINTAINDATA_RT.

Thanks,

Venu

[nmirandaghn]

Thanks, that is very nice, I could implement your solution, however, it's important to know what happened here and how we could avoid this situation. According to your answer this issue just happens in SAP and maybe there's a SAP Notes we could install or there is a transaction we should use to fix this.

[Former Member]

Hello,

When Site level view of Article Master is created and saved, MARC record should have been created. If not, there may be some inconsistency in your system related to data. You can find the inconsistency  by displaying application log (Transaction SLG1). When you drill down the messages, SAP tells the reason for the error.

Thanks,

Venu

[nmirandaghn]

Hi, unfortunately the logs after 10 days are deleted by the administrator, so I don't have history of the logs but I do have the article history, and as I stated the material has never been extended to the plant I indicated. However I can see that at the creation it was assorted to the assortment which has the plant in discussion and it was set the field 'Assortment status' (WLK1-SSTAT) to the value '5' (Assortment has been discontinued) in the same date it was created.

I always thought that when you assort an article, the material then is extended to all the plants of that assortment, maybe there's a problem, that assortment failed somehow. I can see there's a relation however how could WRPL has data from those plants if before that the assortment was discontinued?

[colin_cheong]

Hi,

Can you check the article maintenance history?

Prehaps, it might tell you something.

By the way, was it an old article?

[nmirandaghn]

No, it was not an old material, it was created about a month ago and the history doesn't show any  vestige of being on those plants. But I have one observation about this and is that the material was in the assortment which had all the plants where table WRPL is inconsistent with table MARC. For example;

Assortment A has the following plants: 1000, 1200, and 1300

At some point the material M-01 had this assortment and eventually the assortment A for this article was deleted because it was changed for another. That article M-01 had this assortment doesn't mean it was extended to those plants.

And now the article M-01 has the plants 1000, 1200 and 1300 in WRPL but as I stated it was never extended to the plants in question, so you would not find M-01 with plants 1000, 1200 and 1300 in MARC at this moment.

[Allan_Weiss]

Are you running transaction WSPK?  This is a log that keeps errors in listing segments that should be run nightly.  If you have never run it and if it fails you need to run one day at a time in the log to fix the errors.  Make sure you check the box to delete the log when you run as well.

[nmirandaghn]

Thanks for your response. This transaction is supposed to show me inconsistencies and I appreciate it, in fact I will use it to find this kind of errors. However, it doesn't indentify the inconsistency of my problem and neither it does not fixes my issue.

You see I have two problems here, the first one is that I don't how to avoid this condition and the other is I don't know how to fix it unless I do it manually.

[colin_cheong]

In this case, can you tell me how was the article being created? Thru MM41/MM42 or thru copy assortment?

[nmirandaghn]

Hi, the article was created with MM41 but the assort asignment was made using WSOA6. The material was assorted to the assortment which has the plant that doesn't exist in MARC but on WRPL, however the assortment was set to 5 (Assortment has been discontinued) the same date it was assigned. Later the replenishment parameters (WRPL) were set after that.