cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

RFC Adapter : JCO_ERROR_CONVERSION : Unparseable date: "00000101"

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi all,

We are working with RFC Adapter and JCO 2.1.8.

We are getting the following error while getting the response of the RFC:

2/24/09 18:58:38:314 CET 0000005c SystemErr R com.sap.mw.jco.JCO$ConversionException: (122) JCO_ERROR_CONVERSION: Unparseable date: "00000101" in record ZZ_ANL at field ANLB_ERDAT

2/24/09 18:58:38:314 CET 0000005c SystemErr R at com.sap.mw.jco.JCO$Record.decodeDATE(JCO.java:15178)

2/24/09 18:58:38:314 CET 0000005c SystemErr R at com.sap.mw.jco.JCO$Record.getValue(JCO.java:12038)

2/24/09 18:58:38:314 CET 0000005c SystemErr R at com.sap.mw.jco.JCO$Field.getValue(JCO.java:10376)

We are running out of clues, does anyone have any suggestions?

Best Regards,

Marco

Edited by: Marco Peise on Feb 25, 2009 1:59 PM

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi,

in your RFC request msg, check the data you are sending in field ANLB_ERDAT in record ZZ_ANL....... since it is a date field, you should send a valid date field value in this field.

Regards,

Rajeev Gupta

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Rajeev,

thanks for our answer, but the Request doesn't contain any Data in this Field.

As I stated earlier, this error comes up when we get the response of our request.

The Data in the Database is actually '01.01.0000'. But while parsing this error occurs.

Best Regards,

Marco

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi,

hmmmmm......if this is the case, then ask your ABAP guys to change the RFC response code and to handle such date values in their processing logic eg in ABAP, if the date coming in RFC response is like the date you said, then in an If conditon check for this thing and send only a valid date - or - they can have the date field as optional in the RFC response and then they should not send the date field for such date.

Regards,

Rajeev Gupta

Edited by: RAJEEV GUPTA on Feb 25, 2009 2:14 PM

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi,

this is one possibility about the ABAP Guys - thanks.

But is there any possibility if JCO 3.0.1 is handling this answer in a different way?