$(function () { pageContext.i18n.modTalk = 'moderation talk'; pageContext.i18n.replyToComment = 'Reply'; pageContext.i18n.modTalkEmpty = 'moderation talk is empty'; pageContext.url.getModTalk = "/comments/%25ID%25/listModTalk.json"; pageContext.url.possibleCommentRecipients = "/comments/%ID%/possibleRecipients.json"; pageContext.url.commentEdit = '/comments/%25ID%25/edit.html'; pageContext.url.commentView = '/comments/%ID%/view.html'; pageContext.i18n.commentVisibility = { 'full': 'Viewable by all users', 'op': 'Viewable by the original poster', 'mod': 'Viewable by moderators', 'opAndMod': 'Viewable by moderators and the original poster', 'other': 'Advanced visibility', 'dialogTitle': 'Comment visibility', 'selectGroups': 'Visible to groups', 'selectOther': 'Other recipients', 'selectOriginalPoster': 'Original poster', 'selectModerators': 'Moderators', 'selectAssignees': 'Asked to answer users' }; pageContext.i18n.commentMenuLabels = { 'comment-edit': 'comments.menu.edit', 'comment-delete': 'comments.menu.delete', 'comment-convert': 'comments.menu.convert' };pageContext.i18n.answer= { bestAnswer: 'Best Answer', controlBar : { accept: 'Accept', unaccept: 'Unaccept', acceptCommand: 'Accept this answer as correct', cancelAcceptedCommand: 'Remove this answers accepted status' } }; window.croles = { u: false, op: false, m: false, og: false, as: false, ag: false, dc: false, doc: false, eo: false, ea: false }; tools.init({ q: { e: false, ew: false, eo: false, r: false, ro: false, d: false, dow: false, fv: false, c: false, co: false, p: false, tm: false , ms: false, mos: false }, n: { f: false, vf: false, vfo: false, vr: false, vro: false, c: false, co: false, vu: false, vd: false, w: false, wo: false, l: false }, c: { e: false, eo: false, d: false, dow: false, ta: false, tao: false, l: false }, a: { e: false, ew: false, eo: false, d: false, dow: false, a: false, aoq: false, ao: false, tc: false, tco: false, p: false, tm: false }, pc: croles }, { tc: true, nsc: true }); commandUtils.initializeLabels(); }); Skip to Content

Bypass script logic section based on variable???

I have a logic script that sets a variable list of accounts based on a property:


Then there is a section of the script that will copy the FC values to USD for any of these "AS-IS" flagged accounts.




Essentially the ACCOUNT.RATETYPE check is unnecessary as it's used to scope the ASIS_ACCOUNTS variable but I didn't write this script.

After applying some recent system updates, we are now getting a failed status on the package running from Data Manager.

RUN_LOGIC:No value assigned to dimension "ACCOUNT"
model: Finance. Package status: ERROR

It seems that if NO accounts have this "AS_IS" value in their RATETYPE property, it won't be able to set the scope for ACCOUNT properly in the XDIM_MEMBERSET statement. The result, no value is assigned to dimension ACCOUNT as expected.

To resolve this issue, a test account member was created with the property set and the script completed fine.

Is there a way to bypass a section of the script based on the value of variable %ASIS_ACCOUNTS%?

For example, if %ASIS_ACCOUNTS% is blank (no accounts referenced) I can skip over this section of code to bypass the error. The logic only applies to accounts with this property, so if there are none, I don't want the code to run.

Add comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Get RSS Feed

2 Answers

  • Best Answer
    Oct 30, 2016 at 03:20 PM

    First - incorrect primary tag, has to be: SAP BusinessObjects Planning and Consolidation, version for SAP NetWeaver

    Second: to skip part of the script you have to use FOR/NEXT:

    //%ASIS_ACCOUNTS% will be empty or number of accounts
    //%CP% will empty or single or multiple 'Y'
    *SELECT(%TAC%,"[ID]","ACCOUNT","[CALC]=%CP% AND [ID]="PL100")
    //PL100 - just some existing account, %TAC% will be empty or PL100
    *FOR %T%=%TAC% //if %TAC% is empty the code inside FOR/NEXT will not execute
    //Some code
    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Oct 30, 2016 at 03:39 PM

    Thanks Vadim. Sorry about the primary tag, I've corrected it. (I'm new to the forum)

    So, with the FOR-NEXT syntax, it won't unnecessarily duplicate the code like a traditional FOR-NEXT and essentially run the XDIM_MEMBERSET several times over and over? Does it literally run through the scoping for each record defined in the loop? It seems like there might be performance impacts to processing each record individually like that versus setting the scope and not using a FOR-NEXT loop. As long as there aren't any negative impacts, I will try that.

    I'm still working on getting security access to UJKT at the moment, for now, I have to test UJKT via our basis team.

    Curious to note, this logic without matching members didn't seem to error before but now ends in package error after applying support packs and hana revisions.

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded