The idoc number changes when I execute it in WE19

[Former Member]

Hi,

I am executing an inbound idoc with message type ORDERS in WE19. I then choose the relevant inbound function module, choose the foreground processing and then execute in debug mode.

The control then goes inside the function module. I then check the table IDOC_CONTROL which refers to EDIDC. Here I find that the idoc_contrl[1]-DOCNUM refers to a different idoc number. This number is a different one everytime I execute the WE19. Why is this so?

Thanks and regards,

Anishur

[Former Member]

We19 is a test tool to RECREATE a new idoc based on the idoc you give. It does not process the same idoc. Use BD87 if you want to process the same idoc. You can edit the idoc if needed in We02 and then process it through BD87.

[Former Member]

you can also use BD73 to re-process an existing IDoc without creating a new idoc

[Former Member]

Hello,

You can also use BD87 to reprocess the IDocs.

Thanks and Regards,

Venkat Phani Prasad Konduri

[Former Member]

Hi,

As well said, WE19 is the test tool to edit IDocs. The IDocs created through WE19 would have their initial status as 42 (outbound IDoc created by test transaction) when edited at the outbound side and as 74 status when edited at the inbound side.

Moreover, these edited IDocs can be processed by the program RBDAGAIE if it is not picked up by the background job for a long time.

~ Bineah.

[Former Member]

Hi,

In most cases WE19 is used as a test tool , apart from this in case of any changes are required in the fields present in the segment, immediate changes can be done using WE19. For eg if the Posting Period for a FIDCC2 has to be changed to a previous date on which the posting would actually be executed, it can done using WE19.

IDocs generated for purely testing purpose maybe in a preproduction environment before bringing it live to a production environment, to check for the validity of the data along with the generation of fields WE19 is used.

Thanks

Krithika

[Former Member]

Hi,

Thanks for the reply.

The issue has been resolved.

Thanks and regards,

Anishur