Application Development Discussions
Join the discussions or start your own on all things application development, including tools and APIs, programming models, and keeping your skills sharp.
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Reading Log

Former Member
0 Kudos

Is it possible to identify my BDC inputs (key fields that I provide on screen) during failed BDC transaction (bdc Session) from the Session Log programmatically? I can use the std. FMs RSTS* to get the error messages, but how do I link this error messages to the specific input I had provided?

Thanks

7 REPLIES 7

Former Member
0 Kudos

I don't think that is possible.

0 Kudos

Thanks Srini!!! Thatz what I thought so too

I have to use BDC session and I have to track errors by my inputs, Is there any possible way to do this?

0 Kudos

maybe you could use BDC call transaction in a custom program, the use the MESSAGES into itab extension of CALL TRANSACTION, after execution, write the parameters and the messages to a message itab. At the end of processing show the message itab in ALV grid for the user.

Regards,

Rich Heilman

0 Kudos

I will be invoking bdc using update task and can't do call transaction

0 Kudos

Then, I would say that there is <b>no easy way</b> to accomplish what you want. Notice that I didn't say that it was impossible.

Regards,

Rich Heilman

0 Kudos

Look at program RSBDCCTU. Basically this is what is used in SM35. The logic is, you get all the APQI-GROUPID and QID for the errored transactions. Then with each GROUPID, QID combination, you will open that particular transaction using BDC_RECORD_OPEN. This will give you an internal table called TRANSACTIONS. Loop through this table, and call BDC_RECORD_GET using the transaction index. That will give you the BDC screen data that you originally passed. Now you need to parse through that information to find out which field has which value for a failed transaction.

Hope this helps,

Srinivas

0 Kudos

Thanks Srini/ Rich.. Exactly the answer i was afraid of.. And logically I don't think we can expect any thing more ...