BRF+ - different results in interpretation vs generated mode

[wozjac]

Hi,

I get different results when run against the function fom BRF+ (platform 7.5).

In interpretation mode result is OK.

In generated mode, however, this happens:

The generated class for the function is /FDT/00O2TR0WNEDAW2BVI67LSX2T0.

Date of generation is 14.06.2016

in /FDT/00O2TR0WNEDAW2BVI67LSX2T0=>PROCESS_PURE it enters into processing as expected

/fdt/00o2tr0wnedaw2bvi67lsx2t0=>_m_dt_upto_row_0000000044( EXPORTING _iv_timestamp = _iv_timestamp
CHANGING lv_item_status = /fdt/00o2tr0wnedaw2bvi67lsx2t0=>lv_item_status
_v_cond_buf = _v_cond_buf
_v_match_found = _v_match_found
_v_max_col_matched = _v_max_col_matched

in _M_DT_UPTO_ROW_0000000044 the processing is OK, correct row is found and then all processing goes correctly.

The code first examines that condition form row 36 from the decision table is met, then row 4 from the second decision table is met.

The static attribute /fdt/00o2tr0wnedaw2bvi67lsx2t0=>lv_item_status of the generated class /FDT/00O2TR0WNEDAW2BVI67LSX2T0 is set to 'X', which is as expected.

Now, when the method /fdt/00o2tr0wnedaw2bvi67lsx2t0=>_m_dt_upto_row_0000000044 ends, the attribute /fdt/00o2tr0wnedaw2bvi67lsx2t0=>lv_item_status is cleared. It happens right after ENDMETHOD call.

This results in wrong outcome.

Any suggestions?

Kind Regards

[carsten_ziegler · Accepted solution]

Please create a support ticket. Bug.

[wozjac · Accepted solution]

Thanks for the quick response, submitting issue.

[former_member645855 · Accepted solution]

Is issue resolved? If yes, please provide resolution steps. we are also facing similar issue.

[wozjac]

BTW, is there any workaround other than using interpretation mode before applying the fix?

[anindyaSAP]

Hi,

Simulation in Interpretation mode is usually used by the rule developers. When you call the BRF+ function from your application, the generated code is used.

Hence, the result under generation mode must be correct for you to get the right result in productive use. So, as suggested by Carsten, you need to correct the issue by applying probable fixes.

Thanks,

Anindya