cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

CHARM - Test Approval ToC and updated Original transport

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hello Everyone,

Please be informed that I am encountering an issue with the "Test approval" step of the ToC in QAS, in the normal change document procedure.

Usually the CHARM Tester should give an 2nd approval to release the Original transport which is still open in DEV.

Everything works smoothly except for one thing:

When someone creates an additional task in SPRO and adds this task to the original transport in DEV, this will not be included in the ToC.

The CHARM Tester will not be aware that the original transport has been updated in DEV and will give the approval for the ToC in QAS.

Once the change has been approval, the IT department (or a batchjob) will get the updated version of the original transport in the QAS import queue and later on the PRD import queue.

Is there a way to include a check in the "Normal Change - To be Tested" step, to compare the current ToC in QAS and the original transport in DEV.

Please advise. Thanks in Advance!

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi,

By standard procedure ToCs creating when you pass Normal Change to Test "To be tested", this action actually creating ToCs and they go to QAS.

If some developer want to make some aditional development, you should reset Normal Change to "In development", then again set "To be tested" and new ToCs will be created for this.

About comparing TRs with ToCs its a Basis question i think yes you can do it but not via Solman standard tools like Charm .

Rg Dan

Former Member
0 Kudos

And one more thing, take away authorizaion for  creating tasks in DEV S_TRANSPRT:

  • Tasks can be only created when Normal Change in status "In Development"
  • ToCs will be created each time Normal Change status "To be tested"

So by removing authorizations S_TRANSPRT you will avoid differance between TRs and ToCs.

From Solman Charm tasks will be created by RfC user.

Useful link:

http://scn.sap.com/thread/2075057

Rg Dan

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Daniyar,

Thanks for the usefull information. However I dont think removing the authorizations for creating TR tasks would be an good option for us.

Right now we are moving over to CHARM and therefore I want to assign the existing transports to new change requests documents.

For new TR's I made assigning CTS projects mandatory in SE03 and I set the IMG/CTS switches to not allow people to release transports outside CHARM.

While the Downgrade protection, CSOL and Critical objects are being checked by the "/TMWFLOW/SCMA_TRORDER_ASSIGN" task, the only problem we have now is that there is no functionality to compare the ToC in QAS and the original transport in DEV.

As you suggested I will try to find some solution in the basis area.

Perhaps STMS has these features as well.

In case you know where to find this please do not hestiate to inform me.

thanks in advance!

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi,

If you dont find a stanard way by basis, you can write report that will compare ToCs and TR's

Please have a look at this link

http://scn.sap.com/thread/1950490

If i find standard basis way sure i will inform you.

Rg Daniyar

Former Member
0 Kudos

So if you create the report or you can develop your Action in SPPFCADM, then you can make this checks just by choosing from menu.

In the code you can analyze and if you find diffrenace - message in Normal Change will occur and f.e. reseting status to in development.

But for this you need SPPFCADM skills, ABAP skills and Charm AIC configuration skills.

Its not so hard, but if all follow the procedure you dont need this checks at all.

Rg Daniyar

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Daniyar,

Ok thanks your feedback, yes I know how to make new WEBUI buttons with SPPFCADM action profiles and BADI's reports in it.

I just have to figure out how to fetch the transport objects from the development systems in ABAP and compare them with the TOC content in QAS.

As there are no BOL objects for the transports objects, I think will access the table content within the transport queue.

I was hoping for an out of the box solution, but I guess this is indeed the best approach.

Regards,

Wouter

Answers (0)