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: 

How to identify an IDOC processing

willianbozzi
Explorer
0 Kudos

Hi experts,

We have an enhancement implemented for the material conversion routine (CONVERSION_EXIT_MATN1_INPUT), and I need to bypass some parts of the code if the process is running via IDOC. The thing is: how can I identify an IDOC processing? Is there any SYST field which I can check or something like that? And it would be even better if I could identify also this specific IDOC, since the rule should apply only for this IDOC.

Thank you in advance!

Willian.

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Jelena
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

I would not advise breaking into the standard conversion routine in general. There are users exits specifically for the IDocs and should be no need to do it backwards, essentially.

Other than this problem being clearly self-inflicted - it has been discussed on SCN before how to identify in the user exits when they are triggered in a specific process. The answers are usually rather obvious, i.e. you need some kind of "marker", which could be a specific field, user ID or some value passed from another user exit, for example.

But I'd urge to reconsider the whole design in this case. It does not sound like a good idea.

1 REPLY 1

Jelena
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

I would not advise breaking into the standard conversion routine in general. There are users exits specifically for the IDocs and should be no need to do it backwards, essentially.

Other than this problem being clearly self-inflicted - it has been discussed on SCN before how to identify in the user exits when they are triggered in a specific process. The answers are usually rather obvious, i.e. you need some kind of "marker", which could be a specific field, user ID or some value passed from another user exit, for example.

But I'd urge to reconsider the whole design in this case. It does not sound like a good idea.