Supply chain | Supply Chain Management, Commerce

Consistency check error on route

(0) Share

Report

Posted on by Svisser

When I run my consistency check on Routes I get this error message:

Route number: 000587, 8815010205

The value '5637174595' in field 'Record-ID' is not found in the related table 'Case association'.

But I can't figure out why, hence I am not using Case management.. If I run the same consistency check in Contoso, I get the same error. Why and what does it mean?

I have the same question (0)

All responses (11)

Answers (0)

Suggested answer

Zain Mehmood 4,187 Most Valuable Professional on at

Like (0)

Report

Hi Susanne Riis,

Some times one or more transaction records can be left. Which means the parent data was deleted but the transaction or the record still exists. We call these orphans because they exist in the database but are not connected to any other record.

While these orphans by themselves cause no problem, they take up space in the database and given enough time, a lot of these orphaned records can cause performance issues. This is consistency check is used to remove orphan records from the system.

Probably, some body at some time must have used the case management for something & then deleted it. That's why its showing you record for it.

You need to choose Fix error in the check/fix so the system can address the issue.

Please click yes against the answer if the issue is resolved.

Warm Regards,

Zain Mehmood.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Svisser 10 on at

Like (0)

Report

Hi Zain

1) I have tried to choose the "Fix error" without succes.

2) Hence it is a new environment where we are configuring items, routes and boms and not a production environment I can't imagine that anyone has used the case management. So do you know which table this orphan record could be in?

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Svisser 10 on at

Like (0)

Report

NB Also all tables related to Case is empty.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Suggested answer

Zain Mehmood 4,187 Most Valuable Professional on at

Like (0)

Report

Hi Svisser,

I have checked on Contoso company, I got the same error on Consistency check for routes.

I looked at the case management, the product change case category type.

Path: Organization Administration> Setup> Case> Case Categories.

In that there were some validations enabled related to routes.

For those I set the error level to information.

I ran consistency check again and there were no errors or warnings.

Please do the same for your company.

Please mark yes, if the answer is helpful.

Warm regards,

Zain Mehmood

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Svisser 10 on at

Like (0)

Report

Hi Thank you for looking at it, but unfortunately I am not helped with this suggestion, hence I have no Case categories and therefore no validation rules to change:

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Suggested answer

Zain Mehmood 4,187 Most Valuable Professional on at

Like (0)

Report

Hi Svisser,

Ill suggest you to make a new Case category of the 'product change' category type.

In the validation section for this category,

Set all the routes related validation rules from 'Error' to "Information'

Run consistency check again & verify the results.

Please mark yes, if the answer was helpful.

Warm Regards,

Zain

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Svisser 10 on at

Like (0)

Report

Now I have tried your suggestion, but agin with no luck, as you can see - I still get the error

I have also tried it in our Contoso environment, and I still get the samme errors eventhough I have followed your suggestion in Contoso as well.

I think the only solution is to create an incident to MS, hence it doesn't make any sense that the system is taking validation rules into considation that is NOT enabled.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Suggested answer

Satish Panwar 14,671 Moderator on at

Like (0)

Report

Hi Susanne,

Can you try to query table CaseDetailBase and see if there is any recid or record in that table. Then try to search that recid in "CaseRecId" field of CaseAssociation table.

The consistency check usually is when there is record present in one table and not in another table. If you don't see any record in above table and your install is new, please open up ticket with MS.

If you can tell us how you are running consistency check, we may be able to replicate the error and try to help you out.

Thanks,

Satish Panwar

Please help verify answer(s) if they guide you in right direction so other community members can also benefit from your question with verified answer.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Satish Panwar 14,671 Moderator on at

Like (0)

Report

Hi Susanne,

Were you able to resolve the issue with suggestions above. If not, please share details as requested above.

Thanks,

Satish Panwar

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Svisser 10 on at

Like (0)

Report

Hi

I got a developer to help me finding out what the problem could be. We found the following:

1. I don’t see any code that would prevent validation taking place if case categories are setup. That would explain why you always get the same results, no matter if you have categories or not.

2. Warnings are generated in the following way:

a. Each record from RouteTable is taken and each column (including system fields like RecId) from it is validated separately.

b. Column validation doesn’t take place if column has any country region code assigned (that’s not the case for any field in RouteTable so they are all validated).

c. A standard validation method takes place (validateFIeld). If code for that method is overridden, then it’s launched, but it’s not the case for RouteTable – only standard is run here.

Problem here is that RouteTable is related to CaseAssociation table by RecId. This relation doesn’t require any Case to exist in order for Route to exist (seems logical, since we don’t have any Case records ). When RecId field is checked, we get warning because of that relation, but I don’t know why. I can’t debug it further since I have no access to basic validateField method and I don’t know what happens inside it.

I think that guys from MS should resolve this issue somehow, I don’t see any way to create workaround for now.

So it looks like some kind standard bug.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No