Skip to Content
Technical Articles
Author's profile photo Jigang Zhang 张吉刚

Transport issue caused by ‘FOR ALL ENTRIES IN’

One program using ‘For All Entries in’ which syntax check is ok as well as test result. But getting below error ‘When you use the addition ‘FOR ALL ENTRIES IN itab…” when trying to transport from Development system to Quality system.

Actually, they’re sharing the exact same data type which is Character with length 8 (Domain PRODH3).

         vkorg TYPE vkorg,
         matnr TYPE matnr,
         prodh3 type PRODH3, "char8
       END OF t_mvke. 
 SELECT  ...
    INTO TABLE gt_a948
    FROM a948 AS a
    INNER JOIN konp AS k
    ON a~knumh EQ k~knumh
    FOR ALL ENTRIES IN gt_mvke
    WHERE a~vkorg EQ gt_mvke-vkorg
    AND   ...
    AND   a~prodh3 EQ gt_mvke-prodh3. "<<<<-----Error line---

In spite of the usage of ‘For all entries in’ for many years, still the first time to encounter this issue. And the fix is easy just use exactly the data type from the fetching table instead of using the data element.

* prodh3 type PRODH3, "char8
prodh3 type a948-PRODH3, "char8

Am I the only one who doesn’t know this? 😀 Btw, check this blog, S4 HANA still supports the SELECT FOR ALL ENTRIES statement and sometimes even has better performance than AMDP.

But it’s not recommended at HANA, so please check this for Alternatives of For All Entries.


Assigned Tags

      You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.
      Author's profile photo Sandra Rossi
      Sandra Rossi

      Weird. If that's true, it's either a bug or undocumented feature, there's no reason to type with a different DDIC object of the same type. I don't understand why the activation done from transport can be different from direct activation. Are you sure that the concerned DDIC definitions in the import system are the same as in the source system? You should contact the SAP support for this kind of issue.

      Author's profile photo Jigang Zhang 张吉刚
      Jigang Zhang 张吉刚
      Blog Post Author

      Sandra Rossi

      Thanks for the checking. You're right! The DDIC definitions are different between those two systems! Someone change it many years ago... It's my bad to forget to compare this.

      Thanks for the reminder!