ID transports procedure not effective

[Former Member]

Hi experts,

I am facing an issue regarding PI transports and the way they are done.

We are using CTS+ tool to move the packages through our PI landscape,

and thus, system generates transport orders (XIDK...) that contain j2ee

stuff (one order for ESR objects and another one for ID objects).

As part of our engagement transports, PI transports are done by the

Change Management team. They are responsible of the validation and

importing of all the orders.

The key is that so far we are having problems with the ID transports.

For instance, if we want to transport more than one scenario, first

import will be ok, but at the time the second one should be imported,

it fails throwing RC=8. This is because some common objects (from

scenario 1 & 2) are still in 'ctsadmin' user changelist in target

system.

This issue is preventing rest of the ID transports from being imported

successfully and due to this, lots of transports get stuck in the

import queue.

Could you please let us know how to overpass it, if possible? Is it

completely necessary? Any other workaround? Not only it lacks the performance of the

change management but also it is a matter of responsibilities as, by doing so, the transport team should have to access the ID, and release the import package from the ctsadmin queue....

Do you guys have any clue about how to get rid of this? Is it possible? How do you optimize your PI transports that are performed by another team within your project?

Thanks a lot in advance and best regards,

David

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi David,

You can initially transport all your current ID objects in one go and then activated the objects in your target system. Later on you can transport your objects per configuration scenario.

This is what I did in my previous projects.

Regards,

Erwin

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Thanks for the imput Erwin,

But despite we do what you mentioned, objects will go first to CTSADMIN list and will provoke second transport to be failed...and somebody, will have to transfer (and activate) the import list manually.

I know how to operate with transports and how to solve RC=8 error, this is not the point, I just need to be sure I am not missing something and that this si something that occurs in engagements, no matter how big..

Thanks a lot,

david

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Yes David, I think that yours is the right way.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi David,

We have the same thing. Give them access to the ID and either give them all the info to fill in and activate the objects (it's only comm channel data) or just ask them to activate everything and then it is your consultant's job to check everything before the first test.

[naveen_chichili]

Hi David,

After transporting your objects go to change lists and transfer the changes from user (ctsadmin/nwauser  to your user and do the necessary channel changes(connectivity changes) and then activate youu2019re your user).

Then your objects would effect in your configuration.

Cheers!!

Naveen.

[Former Member]

The problem still persist also after object reassigning from "nwauser" to your User?

[former_member200962]

are still in 'ctsadmin' user changelist in target system.

the objects in the existing change-list in the target PI system need to be activated first....then only you can re-transport the same objects again with RC = 0

The problem still persist also after object reassigning from "nwauser" to your User?

Even if the Change-list is assigned to your name, transport will show an error like XYZ objects are already locked in your change-list.

[Former Member]

Nop,

once the PI consultants transfer the import list to their queue, subsequents transports can be performed.

My question is, is there a possibility of overpassing it?

I mean, in most of engagements, the transports are done by an specific team. By doing so, this team should have to access to ID tool, transfer the list to his queue and import the second TO.

I know that this is not an error, i just want to know if is there a way to optimize this process?

Thanks a lot in advance and best regards,

david

[Former Member]

Yes, that is true.

[former_member200962]

is there a possibility of overpassing it?

No. Also there is no standard way with which the process can be optimized. May be making a mutual agreement within the different teams of your project you can avoid this issue.