cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Problem with symbol #

bhavesh_kantilal
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi All,

While posting an IDOC from my R3 system, one of my fields contained the symbol <b>#</b> and the corresponding scenario errored out in XI.

When I opened the incoming payload, from MONI, I observed that <b>the symbol # was being replaced by a rectangular box in my payload</b>, and that as the reason for the problem.

When I used WE19, to test the same IDOC again, it seems to work fine.<b> If I manually enter the # in WE19, I face no problem watsoever. But when the IDOC is being sent by the R3 system, it seems to error out as stated above.</b>

any ideas as to why this must be happening?

Regards,

Bhavesh

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (2)

Answers (2)

bhavesh_kantilal
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Was a bug in the Idoc adapter.

OSS with SAP solved the problem.

Former Member
0 Kudos

hi Bhavesh,

Can you tell me the OSS number for this issue?

I see this issue in Production. We have tried sending the messages from Development and Quality but this issue is not observed there. Note that the message is not getting errored out.

Only the # character gets removed and gets replaced by CR (0A) character.

regards,

Anirudh Vyas

Former Member
0 Kudos

HI Bhavesh,

Please can you check in your RFC Destination, AI_RUNTIME_JCOSERVER, Tab Unicode

Character conversion

Take Default setting and put

'Ignore Error, Error Indicator: '#' = U+0023'

Regards

Vijaya

bhavesh_kantilal
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Vijaya.

This option was already selected.

I tried to save it just to be sure and I got the following error,

<b>0023000000000000 cannot identify unicode characters</b>

Any other ideas,

regards,

Bhavesh

MichalKrawczyk
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi,

can you try changing the # to a digit

or a letter in the RFC dest <b>from the R3 to xi </b> ?

(the one that is used to send idoc to the XI)

just ot test and check sending idoc from r3?

Regards,

michal

-


<a href="/people/michal.krawczyk2/blog/2005/06/28/xipi-faq-frequently-asked-questions"><b>XI / PI FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions</b></a>

bhavesh_kantilal
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Michal,

Unfortunately, the R3 system is<b> 4.6C non unicode</b> and so, the tab <b>SPECIAL OPTIONS</b> is not available in SM59 for the RFC destination.

Like I mentioned earlier, what I observed is, when the data is being pushed out by the Function Module from the R3, it is getting errored out. but when I am trying to send the same from we19 with the hash symbol, I am facing no issure at all.

Any other ideas?

Regards,

Bhavesh

MichalKrawczyk
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi,

I can imagine I had the same issues once

but do you put # in the FM ?

or is it converted to # from other character?

Regards,

michal

bhavesh_kantilal
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Michal,

This <b>#</b> is coming from my Source IDOCs payload. There is a particular field for which the # is being sent as a part of the payload.

Now, when I see the Outgoing Payload in we02 in r3, I see no problem,and the <b>#</b> symbol is intact.

In XI, in the incoming payload, this # is being replaced by a rectangular box ( sorry, this character is not available on the standard key board ) as a reult of which my mapping throws up a parsing exception ( note : I am using JAVA mapping )

Like I mentioned earlier, when I test the same IDOC from We19 with the # symbol, I see no issue at all. The # is passed as such to XI.

Regards,

Bhavesh

MichalKrawczyk
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

hi,

>>>>when I test the same IDOC from We19 with the # symbol, I see no issue at all. The # is passed as such to XI.

I know but when you do we19 it might be something different (other codepage for example)

there are some sap notes with that search for:

IDOC #TEXT, IDOC adapter #TEXT

#TEXT <- is a key word in this case:)

>>>>I am using JAVA mapping

maybe you can check you java mapping?

why it's erroring out? - do oyu convert the codepage

or anything? or maybe you can check for that strange

character and replace it?

Regards,

michal