Split mapping created no messages

[Former Member]

Proxy to file scenario-

I have used multi mapping, i have used condition in my message mapping when input is 1 my target node should not be created for 2 value it should be created.

I have test with all the condition using test tab and it is working fine, but when I run the scenario end to end it is throwing split message in message mapping this is happening only for conditon 1 where as for condition 2 it is working fine and moni also shows successful message.

I have used the payload form moni and tried testing it from test tab but all the nodes are showing red.

I tried to remove the namespace also from MT but still no luck.

I am using XSD in target.

Thanks

Fabio Boni

[former_member200962 · Accepted solution]

I have used the payload form moni and tried testing it from test tab but all the nodes are showing red.

Seems you forgot to remove the - sign while copying the payload from SXMB_MONI.

Regards,

Abhishek.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

I have used view source code from pay load.

here is my payload:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><n0:MT_PurchaseOrder_test xmlns:n0="urn:test-Manem:PurchaseOrder" xmlns:prx="urn:sap.com:proxy:DSP:/1SAI/TASE631F1781E9FEA21F25F:700:2008/06/25"><RecordSet><file_type_>u_orders</file_type_><file_created>29/01/2010 11:3359</file_created><file_company> test</file_company><file_empty>1</file_empty><Plant>DB10</Plant><Header><id_order_header_>F00162800130</id_order_header_><issuing_date>2010-01-29T00:00:00</issuing_date><order_number>F001628-00130</order_number><delivery_location>test- </delivery_location><fax_for_order>+88676211306</fax_for_order><id_network_>test</id_network_><issuer>LIPPARINI MAURO</issuer><id_supplier_>FF14268</id_supplier_><id_order_type_>MF</id_order_type_><to_be_collected>N</to_be_collected><currency>USD</currency><payment>BONIFICO 60 GG.D. FATT.F.M.</payment><shipment>VIA MARE</shipment><supplier_code>F14268</supplier_code><current_payment>BONIFICO 60 GG.D. FATT.F.M.</current_payment><current_shipment>VIA MARE</current_shipment><contract_number>F001628</contract_number><forecast_type>400</forecast_type><open_contract>F001628 dal 2

fabio

Edited by: Fabio Boni on Jan 29, 2010 11:48 AM

[former_member200962 · Accepted solution]

Your source is a PROXY/ SAP system?

I assume that you have created a MT by the name: MT_PurchaseOrder_DUCATI in IR/ ESR......if yes then your payload should not have an additional namespace

xmlns:prx="urn:sap.com:proxy:DSP:/1SAI/TASE631F1781E9FEA21F25F:700:2008/06/25" .....if possible enter the details manually in the test tab....the tabs are turning red because of this namespace.

Regards,

Abhishek.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi,

As I said when i tested the scenario with test tab with condition 1 it is successfully executed in message mapping but when the scenario is running end to end it is throwing split message error in moni.

for other input 2 with xmlns:prx="urn:sap.com:proxy:DSP:/1SAI/TASE631F1781E9FEA21F25F:700:2008/06/25" name space moni is showing successfull message but with input 1 it is throwing an error.

yes u r correct its proxy to file scenario- i tried to remove the name space from MT but still the name space is created in moni.

fabio

[former_member200962 · Accepted solution]

i tried to remove the name space from MT but still the name space is created in moni.

I said to remove the namespace when you are making use of the Test option of Message Mapping/ Interface mapping......this namespace is associated with the Proxy and hence will appear in SXMB_MONI....the error is not due to this.

If you feel that the source payload is creating the required messages (if you use the payload from SXMB_MONI into IR) then re-create the Interface Determination.

I still feel that the data with which you are testing is the one which you selected in such a way that it creates two messages....however the data flowing at runtime is not as per the validations....so either the validation is not proper or the payload is not proper.

Regards,

Abhishek.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

data flowing is correct with respect to validation,i m wondering why for case 2 it is working but for case 1 from test messge tab it is working but end to end it is not working.ù

any other piint u feel to validate.