Skip to Content
Former Member
Nov 15, 2007 at 04:03 PM

SLFN verses SDTM in Test Workbench


We are in a new implementation project using the test workbench (STWB_2) on our development and test systems. We are newly implementing CHARM and trying to understand an apparent inconsistency or lack of integration.

CHARM help documentation reads that the SDTM Test Message transaction is used to report problems back to the developer discovered in testing. This transaction type requires no change approval before creating new transport requests and development since it is already sanctioned development.

Logging defects in the test workbench (STWB_WORK) calls notif_create to create an SLF1-SLFN support message. The CHARM help documentation shows the process flow for SLFN as next going to a change request for approval and then change document before further development.

On an implementation project, defects found in testing and logged through the test workbench are sanctioned development requiring no approval. The approval loop is inefficient overhead in this situation. It seems that test defects logged in the workbench for implementation projects should trigger a fast path transaction type like SDTM.

Changing the behavior of notif_create to trigger a different document type in this situation does not appear to be an easy change.

It appears that we are misunderstanding something, or CHARM is not integrated with the test workbench. Any insight you can provide is helpful.