ME 6.0 meData.xml

[former_member323997]

Hi,

We are using the SY520 activity for labeling printing, configured as the HookPoint POST_START, the label is printed out successfully. But I found a wired scenario and wanted to ask. We have two dev NetWeavers, one is named A60 and another is named E60, both are sharing one WIP and ODS database, only the NetWeavers are individual. I configured the printing settings in the A60, and tried the label printing it succeeded. And then I logged into another NW E60 and tried the printing, I found the SFC_CUSTOM_DATA stracture in meData.xml generated during the printing is different between two NWs.

in A60, the structure is like bellow:

<SFC_CUSTOM_DATA>

<ATTRIBUTE>SIRIUS_2</ATTRIBUTE>

<VALUE>SIRIUS_2</VALUE>

</SFC_CUSTOM_DATA>

<SFC_CUSTOM_DATA>

<ATTRIBUTE>IMEI</ATTRIBUTE>

<VALUE>IMEI</VALUE>

</SFC_CUSTOM_DATA>

<SFC_CUSTOM_DATA>

<ATTRIBUTE>DIAGNOSE_INDEX</ATTRIBUTE>

<VALUE>GFDDEE</VALUE>

</SFC_CUSTOM_DATA>

<SFC_CUSTOM_DATA>

<ATTRIBUTE>SFC_DATE</ATTRIBUTE>

<VALUE>SFC_DATE</VALUE>

</SFC_CUSTOM_DATA>

<SFC_CUSTOM_DATA>

<ATTRIBUTE>COMMENTS</ATTRIBUTE>

<VALUE>COMMENTS</VALUE>

</SFC_CUSTOM_DATA>

<SFC_CUSTOM_DATA>

<ATTRIBUTE>MAC_ADDRESS</ATTRIBUTE>

<VALUE>MAC_ADD</VALUE>

</SFC_CUSTOM_DATA>

While in E60, it looks like bellow:

<SFC_CUSTOM_DATA>

<ATTRIBUTE0>COMMENTS</ATTRIBUTE0>

<VALUE0>COMMENTS</VALUE0>

<ATTRIBUTE1>SFC_DATE</ATTRIBUTE1>

<VALUE1>SFC_DATE</VALUE1>

<ATTRIBUTE2>IMEI</ATTRIBUTE2>

<VALUE2>IMEI</VALUE2>

<ATTRIBUTE3>SIRIUS_2</ATTRIBUTE3>

<VALUE3>SIRIUS_2</VALUE3>

<ATTRIBUTE4>CHANGE_INDEX_NUMBER</ATTRIBUTE4>

<ATTRIBUTE5>CHRG_NUMBER</ATTRIBUTE5>

<ATTRIBUTE6>DATE_CODE</ATTRIBUTE6>

<ATTRIBUTE7>HARDWARE_PARTNUMBER_ONE</ATTRIBUTE7>

<ATTRIBUTE8>CUSTOMER_COMPLETE</ATTRIBUTE8>

<ATTRIBUTE9>CUSTOMER_QUALITY</ATTRIBUTE9>

<ATTRIBUTE10>SECOND_NUMBER</ATTRIBUTE10>

<ATTRIBUTE11>SIRIUS_1</ATTRIBUTE11>

<ATTRIBUTE12>SUPPLIER_MAT_NUMBER</ATTRIBUTE12>

<ATTRIBUTE13>SOFTWARE_PARTNUMBER_ONE</ATTRIBUTE13>

<ATTRIBUTE14>BLUETOOTH_ADDRESS</ATTRIBUTE14>

<ATTRIBUTE15>HARDWARE_EC</ATTRIBUTE15>

<ATTRIBUTE16>MAC_ADDRESS</ATTRIBUTE16>

<VALUE16>MAC_ADD</VALUE16>

<ATTRIBUTE17>SOFTWARE_EC</ATTRIBUTE17>

<ATTRIBUTE18>SW_PART_NUMBER_EMERGENCY_PROG</ATTRIBUTE18>

<ATTRIBUTE19>SW_VERSION_EMERGENCY_PROG</ATTRIBUTE19>

<ATTRIBUTE20>DATE_EMERGENCY_PROG</ATTRIBUTE20>

<ATTRIBUTE21>ACCESSION_NUMBER</ATTRIBUTE21>

<ATTRIBUTE22>ACESSION_NUMBER</ATTRIBUTE22>

<ATTRIBUTE23>CPPM</ATTRIBUTE23>

<ATTRIBUTE24>DIAGNOSE_INDEX</ATTRIBUTE24>

<VALUE24>GFDDEE</VALUE24>

<ATTRIBUTE25>DTCP</ATTRIBUTE25>

<ATTRIBUTE26>K_MATRIX</ATTRIBUTE26>

<ATTRIBUTE27>CUSTOMER_HARDWARE</ATTRIBUTE27>

<ATTRIBUTE28>CUSTOMER_SOFTWARE</ATTRIBUTE28>

<ATTRIBUTE29>CUSTOMER_COMPLETE_HARDWARE</ATTRIBUTE29>

<ATTRIBUTE30>CUSTOMER_COMPLETE_SOFTWARE</ATTRIBUTE30>

<ATTRIBUTE31>CUSTOMER_COMPLETE_VERSION</ATTRIBUTE31>

<ATTRIBUTE32>TH_BARCODE_01</ATTRIBUTE32>

<ATTRIBUTE33>BARCODE_01</ATTRIBUTE33>

</SFC_CUSTOM_DATA>

Obviously, in E60 all the SFC custom data fields are sent to meData.xml, but in A60, only those which have been assigned the value are sent.

I checked the How-To-Guide, it seems the E60 structure is standard. But we prefer to the structure in A60, but not sure where we can define this as default.

I attached both meData.xml for your references.

Thanks a lot and best regards,

Leon

[sergiy_katerinich · Accepted solution]

Hi Leon,

Could you please confirm if my understanding below is correct?

1. The instances are identical in terms of versions of deployed components.

2. You execute the same steps for the same SFC in each instance but obtain different structure of meData.xml in different instances.

3. What is the result of the following steps? Is the file of step 3.a the same as the file of step 3.c? Is the file of step 3.b the same as the file of step 3.d? Do the files of different instances still have different structure?

1. In A60, start SFC1 at OPER1 and RES1, check the file, signoff the SFC.
2. In E60, start SFC1 at OPER1 and RES1, check the file, signoff the SFC.
3. Repeat step #3.a.
4. Repeat step #3.b.

Regards,

Sergiy

[former_member323997 · Accepted solution]

Hi Sergiy,

For your questions:

1. I checked the component version, in A60 the ME core version is 6.0.4.0, and E60 the ME core build version is 6.0.4.10. Please let me know whether this might be the root cause.

2. yes, because two instances are sharing the database, therefore I selected the same site and performed the complete same steps;

3. I just tested again, same result as before. The stracture in A60 is different from E60. Same as what I have attached to you.

Thanks & regards,

Leon

[former_member323997 · Accepted solution]

Hi Sergiy,

After the A60 was updated to same version as E60 has, now the meData.xml structure is consistent.

Best regards,

Leon