How To Fix /AIF/STRUCT_GEN013 - Component type already exists with different description; DDIC value: &1

SAP Error Message - Details

• Message type: E = Error

• Message class: /AIF/STRUCT_GEN -

• Message number: 013

• Message text: Component type already exists with different description; DDIC value: &1

Self-Explanatory Message

Since SAP believes that this specific error message is 'self-explanatory,' no more information has been given.The majority of messages in the SAP system have a message text, however this is frequently insufficient to comprehend or resolve the problem.

To make things easier, more detailed information is frequently added to describe the issue, how to fix it, and the necessary steps or configuration modifications.

Unfortunately, there isn't any extra information in this error notice.

What else can you do?

First, use our AnswerBot below to get a possible cause and solution (requires a premium subscription).

Also, review the in-depth Common Questions & Answers listed below; you could discover a solution there or be able to connect with others who have faced similar challenges.

You can also try searching the SAP support portal (support.sap.com) but you need a special user ID to access it. It is possible that an SAP support note exists that provides additional details about the mistake or even steps for fixing it.

Smart SAP Assistant

• What is the cause and solution for SAP error message /AIF/STRUCT_GEN013 - Component type already exists with different description; DDIC value: &1 ?

  The SAP error message /AIF/STRUCT_GEN013 indicates that there is a conflict with the component type definition in the Application Interface Framework (AIF). Specifically, it means that a component type with the same identifier already exists in the system, but it has a different description than the one you are trying to create or modify.
  Cause:
  
  Duplicate Component Type: The error typically arises when you attempt to create a new component type that has the same technical name as an existing one, but the description (or other attributes) differs.
  Inconsistent Data Dictionary (DDIC) Entries: The Data Dictionary (DDIC) might have entries that are not aligned with the definitions in AIF, leading to discrepancies.
  Transport Issues: If you have transported objects from one system to another, there might be inconsistencies between the source and target systems.
  
  Solution:
  
  
  Check Existing Component Types: 
  
  Use transaction code SE11 (Data Dictionary) or AIF transaction to check the existing component types. Look for the component type with the same name and verify its description.
  
  
  
  Modify or Delete Existing Component: 
  
  If the existing component type is not needed, consider deleting it or modifying its description to match the new one you are trying to create.
  If the existing component is required, you may need to adjust your new component's name or description to avoid the conflict.
  
  
  
  Consistency Check: 
  
  Run consistency checks in AIF to ensure that all definitions are aligned and there are no discrepancies between the DDIC and AIF definitions.
  
  
  
  Transport Management: 
  
  If the issue is related to transport, ensure that all relevant objects are correctly transported and that there are no missing dependencies.
  
  
  
  Consult Documentation: 
  
  Review SAP documentation or notes related to AIF and component types for any specific guidelines or known issues.
  
  
  
  Related Information:
  
  
  Transaction Codes: 
  
  SE11: Data Dictionary
  AIF: Application Interface Framework
  SE80: Object Navigator (for checking related objects)
  
  
  
  SAP Notes: 
  
  Check SAP Notes for any known issues or patches related to AIF and component types. You can search for notes using the SAP Support Portal.
  
  
  
  SAP Community: 
  
  Engage with the SAP Community forums for insights from other users who may have encountered similar issues.
  
  
  
  By following these steps, you should be able to resolve the error and ensure that your component types are correctly defined in the AIF.