on 01-25-2012 2:55 PM
Hi everybody,
maybe one of you can support me or have some experiences in case of using the Cross System Lock. We are checking the possibilty to implement the Cross System Lock (using in ChaRM, Scenario E (/TMWFLOW/Config_Lock).
First of all, we made a successful test in usage of table content.
Example:
You save a table modification in a Transport Request generated in ChaRM. Thus, the Transport Request is buffered in a Change Document. The result is that the table modification is locked in the object-monitor (/TMWFLOW/LOCKMON).
However, you save a role (pfcg) in a Transport Request generated in ChaRM the included objects in this role are not buffered in the object-monitor (/TMWFLOW/LOCKMON)
Thanks for your answers!
Best regards
Joachim Eichner
Hi,
we have the same problem in a project in which we used ChaRM (and the Retrofit functionality) so we created an OSS ticket. The answer from SAP was: "CSOL functionality does not support authorization and role change"
Best regards
Markus Scheuber
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
If you use the report TMW_TRKORR_LOCK_UPDATE against the role transport after saving your changes in it, this will register the role objects in the CSOL.
The Role transport tool does not automatically trigger the FM that registers the objects in the CSOL, just like manually adding objects to a transport doesn't trigger it. Therefore the workaround is to run this report. Only the transport owner is allowed to run TMW_TRKORR_LOCK_UPDATE.
In our experience it is not that CSOL does not support roles and authorizations; for the purpose of retrofit, it is able to detect conflicts reliably if the report is run consistently after saving role changes to transport. If no conflicts exists, auto-import works fine. If conflicts exist, then roles must be manually retrofitted.
Hi All,
I was searching for the same. In the meantime SAP has published the following OSS note.
1901007 - Does CSOL support locking for transaction PFCG? - Solution
Manager
Perhaps it is worthwile to check it for your case.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
User | Count |
---|---|
87 | |
10 | |
10 | |
10 | |
7 | |
6 | |
6 | |
5 | |
5 | |
4 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.