How to use Value Mappings for simple translations?

[Former Member]

Hello,

I want to use Value Mappings for simple translations in mappings, e.g. from IDoc to Inhouse structures.

For example unit of quantity:

IDOC --> INHOUSE

PCE P

ABC A

How can I use Value Mapping for this? What should be used as Agency, what should be used for Scheme? What about groups? I tried the following: I created a new Value Mapping in Integration Directory:

- Source Agency: DELVRY05

- Source Scheme: MENEE (IDoc field name)

- Target Acency: INHOUSE_DESADV (Name of structure)

- Target scheme: UNIT (Name of field)

Then, in the table, I added several lines for translating PCE to P and ABC to A and so on. But I have to define a group name for each line. I used INHOUSE. But than I get one INHOUSE group for each line.

This seems very complicated for simple translations from A to B. I don't want to use FixValue in Message mappings.

Any help appreciated.

Thanks,

Christoph

[former_member183908]

Hi

Refer to this Following blog for value mapping,but the following blog used for normal Graphical mapping between file to file.

/people/community.user/blog/2007/01/08/valuemapping-using-the-graphical-mapping-tool

Thanks

[Former Member]

Hello,

@pavan kumar: Thanks, but I know all Blogs about Value Mappings. That does not help me. And I refer to PI 7.1.

Lets get it very simple: I want to have exactly the same functionality of "FixValues" as ValueMappings. In 7.1, I need to define a Group for every row / line in the conversion table (e.g. for units of measurement conversion between IDoc and FlatFile). That does not make sense for me, as the Group is always the same, e.g. "Unit of measurement". So I will get dozens of same groups called "Unit of measurement".

I don't really understand the concept of Groups. Maybe this is just not appropiate for my intenses? Maybe the Group has to be defined as one specific value of Unit of measurement, e.g. "pieces"?

CHRISTOPH

[MichalKrawczyk]

hi,

I'm not a fan of value mappings due to many limitations they offer

- like difficult maintanance

- you cannot have 2 source values meaning one target value

(as value mappings need to work in both ways)

so I'd recommend using a normal table (either in XI - so you can access

it easily via abap mappings) or table in R3 (you can access it via

RFC lookups - graphical looups from - 7.1)

easy to implement and maintain

Regards,

Michal Krawczyk

[Former Member]

Hello,

thanks for the feedback. Then I am wondering why such a powerful EAI / B2B / A2A tool like SAP PI 7.1 makes such easy things so complicated...

Do you have an documentation / how-to for using a normal table in XI and accessing it via ABAP mapping? Is that a good solution for translations in message mappings? That sounds quite complicated...

Another issue I just recognized: When I use Value Mappings in my message mapping, I have to define sender and recceiver agency / schema manually, that means I cannnot chose from existing agencys / schemes. IMHO a great source for errors.

Thanks,

Christoph