Receiver determination issue on PI 7.1

[Former Member]

Hi guys,

I have an issue with receiver determination on PI 7.1. I have developed a scenario with one outbound async interface with 4 operations. Although I have created a receiver determination, the system throws an execption "No receiver could be determined" which indicates, there's something wrong with the receiver determination. However, I have checked it very properly and I think it's correct. But I'm thinking, there could be problem in something else - My sender system is ABAP and I'm using client proxies to send these async messages to target. For this I'm using the XI adapter. Theoretically it should work, but.. The messages are generated fine, but there's the problem with determination. Any hints what to check?

Thanks a lot, Olian

[udo_martens · Accepted solution]

Hi Olian,

copy the signature values (BS, IF, NS) from MONI into the Receiver Determination to avoid any manual mistake.

Regards,

Udo

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Udo,

the thing is, if you use 7.1 and several operations per interface, you have not only the interface name in MONI, but also operation. So if you have for instance interface intf_out with methods m1 and m2, you have intf_out.m1 in the MONI. You can't use this in Receiver determination. Well, at least I think you shoudn't.

And this is what I'm not sure with..

Does somebody have 7.1 several operation per interface with the XI adapter sent out from ABAP? Any experience guys?

Thanks,

Olian

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

I understand you have 4 Outbound operations used in this scenario.

Check the Operation mapping, inbound interface name in the interface determination, as even this could be a error message in your case.

I faced similar error messages when there is no scenario existing, when the cache is not refreshed, when my 7.1 Interface mapping did not pick up the 0...unbounded multiplicity of the Operation mapping, when my Multi mapping in MM did not generate a root node below Messages tab.........other than what you mentioned to be the reason.

Ideally, the problem with the Receiver determination will be in the case where you have one Sender Interface from one source and sending to many or one outbound interface.

Here You should make sure that the proper Outbound - Operation Mapping - Inbound MI combination is setup between correct source and receiver details as you have 4 outbound interfaces.

Are you routing them to 4 different Inbound interfaces of 1 receiver?

How many mesg mappings do you have in this scenario?are you using BPM?

If yes, there is a option in receiver determination to select a default receiver. Try that ( I am sure you have tried this option, just checking )

Please explain more about the scenario, like no of Outbound operations, number of inbound operations...

proxy message names ( if you are using standard messages from SAP delivered content), conditions you are placing @ Interface determination / MM to filter this etc.

I will try to replicate this and probably it might help.

Thanks,

Venkat.

Edited by: Venkat Anusuri on Jun 9, 2009 11:51 AM

[Former Member]

A simple test will help u get to the issue...

First manuallly generate a test message in ur ESR...

Go to ur ID and using the configuration test tool... Put the test msg ..fill the the source BS , interface name and namespace and execute...see if all the steps are successful....if not it is a config issue...If the test is successful then it is an issue with ur data...Compare the BS/ Interface and namespace of your actual message with the one you just tested...also have a look at the XML structures...

That should help u resolve the issue..

regards

Arvind R

[Former Member]

Hi!

That means you can see the message in SXMB__MONI but in error with error "...receiver determination ..." correct?

Okay. Then please have a look at TRACE part of the message in SXMB_MONI. There you should find more details. If possible restart the message in SXMB_MONI while increasing the trace level to get more details.

And please double check if the following things are correct:

SWCV

Namespace

Upper/Lower Case

Regards,

Volker