cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Logical ports - SRT Framework exception: Preconfiguration is invalid

Former Member

Hi all,

I'm recreating logical ports in a test system which has been refreshed from live. We have 10 web services which are consumer proxies in SOAMANAGER. I'm clicking the create logical port button and providing the WSDL file details in the popup.

For 5 of them it worked ok; for the other 5 I got the error "SRT Framework exception: Preconfiguration is invalid".

I've searched but I can't find much useful help on this error. These are all services which were using in our live environment so I wouldn't expect any fundamental errors. Maybe there is some issue with those 5 WSDLs. We applied some service packs a couple of months ago so there may have been some changes since we last had to do this. I don't see anything useful on OSS.

Any ideas anyone?

Best regards,

Paul

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Paul,

Are you sure that the required services which needs to be activated like SRT(SOAP Runtime) etc are active in

SICF transaction. default-> sap ->bc-> SRT

Please check if this note helps 1319742.

And if you using an consumer proxy and need to create a Logical port,please see if the URl which you need to mention is correct and you have all the authentications required

Regards,

Srinivas

Former Member
0 Kudos

Srinivas,

Thanks for the response. The consumer proxies (services we consume from other providers) don't seem to be listed in SICF. Just the web services which we expose. The same with the note you found, it's about publishing web services, not consuming them.

The URI's in the WDSLs are correct, and the fact that 5 have worked shows I have the right authorisations.

My investigations over the last few hours have suggested that it may be related to support packs. I created a very similar client proxy in SE80 in our development system and the configuration tab detail has changed a lot from one we did over a year ago. The old one had an operation profile node with 5 features. The new one created under SP20 also has an interface profile and a security profile with 2 features each.

I could delete the proxy and re-transport but this takes a lot of admin. I wonder if there's a way of refreshing these proxy configurations in the other test systems without a transport.

Best regards,

Paul

Former Member
0 Kudos

HI Paul,

Did you able to resolve this issue?

If so, please share your findings here. It would be helpful to me as well as others.

Thanks,

Bhavik

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Bhavik,

We raised a message with SAP and they agreed. The old version is not compatible with the new version so you have to regenerate in the development system and transport.

"If the design time object was generated on lower SP level where no SOAMANAGER existed. In such cases the configuration might be invalid for the SOAMANAGER. Please regenerate the service definition in SE80 again to address this issue."

The painful part is the testing of each web service in each system as it involves various teams, and a lot of time.

Best regards,

Paul

Former Member
0 Kudos

Thanks Paul for the response.

Did SAP provide any solution or fix for this issue?

Or recreating the proxy class and creating new LP is the last option?

I am also on SAP_BASIS 700 SP20.

I am not sure when it was upgraded, but i bet it would be due to upgrade only.

Thanks,

Bhavik

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Bhavik,

No solution or fix except to regenerate and retransport from development. It would have been very useful if they could have provided an update tool but I guess there's not enough of us complaining about it.

With hindsight we could have created multiple logical ports, one for each of our systems in the production system at the time we originally developed them. Then after a system copy to refresh our Q system we wouldn't have to recreate any. We would just check the details, ports, path, etc were correct. But too late now as the production system also has the new SP.

Best regards,

Paul.

Answers (0)