SLD Business transport groups

[george_hamilton]

Hello,

I inherited a PI 7.1 system. I'm trying to determine if the current SLD transport groups are setup correctly. We currently have two SLDs: Design time (BS_DEV, BS_QA) and runtime (BS_PRD).

The current configuration is as follows:

In the design time SLD

Business system BS_Dev (development) is in the BS_DEV_GROUP and has a target group BS_QA_GROUP with a target system BS_QA. I think this is correct.

Business system BS_QA is in the BS_QA_GROUP and has a source group BS_DEV with the source group BS_DEV_GROUP with business system BS_DEV. But, there is no target for this system. I think it should be the BS_PRD system in the BS_PRD_GROUP.

In the second SLD, the runtime SLD has the following configuration:

The BS_DEV system is part of the BS_DEV_GROUP and has a target system of BS_PRD in the BS_PRD_GROUP. The BS_QA system has no source system and no target. I think this is wrong. The DEV_PRD system has a source system of BS_DEV of BS_DEV_GROUP. There is no reference to the BS_QA system.

Also, when the BS_QA system is configured it should have a source system BS_DEV system and a target system BS_QA, right?

I think this is configured to bypass the QA system. Do you agree? Sorry for the long post. Oh,, CTS+ is working.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi George,

Business system BS_Dev (development) is in the BS_DEV_GROUP and has a target group BS_QA_GROUP with a target system BS_QA. I think this is correct.

Business system BS_QA is in the BS_QA_GROUP and has a source group BS_DEV with the source group BS_DEV_GROUP with business system BS_DEV. But, there is no target for this system. I think it should be the BS_PRD system in the BS_PRD_GROUP.

This setting is fine, just that the BS_QA should point towards the BS_PRD.

The BS_DEV system is part of the BS_DEV_GROUP and has a target system of BS_PRD in the BS_PRD_GROUP. The BS_QA system has no source system and no target. I think this is wrong. The DEV_PRD system has a source system of BS_DEV of BS_DEV_GROUP. There is no reference to the BS_QA system.

Well, Technically this is not exactly wrong. Means, as you have mentioned, you inherited this environment. So, might be the QA was facing some technical issues for which QA was being by-passed, rather QA was being isolated.

Architecturally, this is completely wrong. So, you might have to change this and point the systems in the right directions.

Let us know if you have more queries.

Regards,

Neetesh

Edited by: Neetesh Raj on Aug 24, 2009 1:14 PM

Edited by: Neetesh Raj on Aug 24, 2009 1:15 PM

[george_hamilton · Accepted solution]

Thanks so much for your quick reply. It's nice to get a sanity check on this.

On a different note, do you use sld synchronization or CTS+ transports for your business/technical systems, products/software components? I think what they did this in the system I inherited instead of using the CTS+ system that was setup.

I think you're right; I believe they did the approach of bypassing the BS_QA system to just get it to work. Now I need to find out if I can correct it but I may mess it up. That is a bad situation to be in.

If you would, please let me know what you use to transfer your sld content. I'd appreciate it. I'll then close this and give you the points.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Well, it depends on what exactly you are looking for.

My personal preference is doing SLD synchronization. It completely depends on individual as well as the project need.

With PI 7.1, the functionality of transporting ESR / ID components has been given to the Client level, which was not available in previous versions. With CTS+, I can't go to the individual component level for transport. So, I prefer doing it on my own, where I do have the visibility for all the components involved.

Also, I have two groups for SLD, one for Dev + QA and another for QA + Prod and I do Content Synchronization for that.

Hope this answer is helpful.

Regards,

Neetesh

Edited by: Neetesh Raj on Aug 24, 2009 4:02 PM

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Goeorge!

We have implemented CTS+ for transports of ESR, ID and SLD objects. This gives you more control over the transport process. Additionally you can package together ESR, ID, and SLD objects belonging to the same change request and transport them together.

Using SLD synch you cannot avoid that "trash" objects just created for testing purposes are transported to QA and Prod.

SLD synch is just used for technical system information.

Regards,

Volker

[george_hamilton · Accepted solution]

Thanks for the reply. Sorry I took a while to respond.

We have the same situation for the SLDs. We have one for the Dev/QA and another for the Production environment. I think what I going to do is map the transport groups in the Production SLD to point from the BS_QA to the BS_PRD system. I'm going to fix the situation where the transport groups in Production are mapped from BS_DEV to BS_PRD directly. Is the BS_DEV --> BS_PRD configuration something that can be fixed after you have already done transports?

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi,

>

 Is the BS_DEV --> BS_PRD configuration something that can be fixed after you have already done transports?

Your question is not clear. What I understand is that you have objects transported from BS_DEV->BS_PRD. But once you make it from BS_QA->BS_PRD, you might have to change some configurations. Am I right?

Regards,

Neetesh

[george_hamilton · Accepted solution]

Yes. The current configuration in the Dev/QA SLD is that the BS_DEV system has a target system of BS_QA, which makes sense.

In the Production SLD, the configuration is that the BS_DEV system has a target of the BS_PRD system. The BS_QA system has no target at all. I would think that the BS_QA system would have a target of the BS_PRD system.

I would have to change the BS_QA target to be BS_PRD. I just don't know if the change will mess up the system or does it make sense for BS_DEV to have a target of BS_PRD since there are two SLDs. Or will changing the target of the BS_QA system to BS_PRD will break something since the BS_QA system had no target at all.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

George,

Now there are two approaches....

1. If you are using file transportation -- and if you planning to regenerate transport file from QA to PRD, you need to maintain source group for PRD as QA system. However you are planning to import same tpz file in PRD system which you hv/had imported in QA system source group for PRD system would be your DEV group.

2. In case of CTS+ transports:

You cannot create new transport in QA systems so source group for PRD is always your DEV group. Here no need to specify QA as a source for PRD.

Hope this will give you clear picture.

Let me know if you need more details.

Thanks,

Nilesh

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi George,

>

 I would have to change the BS_QA target to be BS_PRD.  I just don't know if the change will mess up the system or does it make sense for BS_DEV to have a target of BS_PRD since there are two SLDs.  Or will changing the target of the BS_QA system to BS_PRD will break something since the BS_QA system had no target at all.

BS_DEV pointing to BS_PRD doesn't make sense. So, you need to do the appropriate changes.

Don't worry about messing things up, if you face any road blocks, the whole SAP PI community will jump to help you.

Here are some pointers for you to take care :-

1. In your 2 SLD's you need to create all the business systems. If you using CMS, then you need to create separate tracks and domains. You need to change the transport targets in the respective SLDs.

2. You don't need to re-configure ID scenarios, unless and until you change the naming conventions of the business systems. If you change the naming conventions then you need to configure.

3. Do SLDCHECK for all the systems.

Hope this is helpful.

Regards,

Neetesh

[george_hamilton · Accepted solution]

You can create a transport in a Q system. It is just a repair then. So you can setup the transport path so the source group for BS_PRD is BS_QA? Does that sound right? If you don't ever create a repair then everything is okay anyway. Let me know what you think.

[george_hamilton · Accepted solution]

Thanks for all of your help. We left it the way it was and it worked. As it is technically correct (but not recommended). We plan to fix it soon. Thanks for all of your help!