Flat File to IDOC- didn't get data into IDOC

[vishnu_pallamreddy]

Hi All,

Our scenario is Flat File to IDOC....

working fine... didn't get any errors... IDOC also generated but didn't get any data in that IDOC....

for details see the attachment...

Thanks In Advance,

vishnu.........

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi,

Check the FCC payload is that generated as expected...Check there might be the problem with how data got generated for your FCC file...

Take the same and test at your mapping level..

HTH

Rajesh

[xinjiang_li · Accepted solution]

Hi,

The payload in the first picture you provided in SXMB_MONI is just the payload after the message mapping, while you need to switch on your logging mechinism in SXMB_ADM and check out the payload before the message mapping, then you can get whether the problem resides on FCC side or mapping side.

[vishnu_pallamreddy · Accepted solution]

Hi Rajesh,

I am getting payload in RWB from sender Cc like below:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>

- <ns:MT_File xmlns:ns="http://mouritech.com/file2idocsender">

- <MT_File>

<Value>1</Value>

<Reason>test</Reason>

</MT_File>

</ns:MT_File>

If i test with this payload in mapping i am getting a pop up with this message and mapping not completed ...

Could you please let me know what i have to do now?

Pop Up: 

        The processing instruction target matching "[xX][mM][lL]" is not allowed.

See error logs for details    

[abranjan · Accepted solution]

Hi Vishnu,

The mapping error you got after pasting the payload in test can be due to incorrect xml. Hope you're inserting the source of xml and not the xml directly like you've copy pasted above. If not, you can try pasting the source and testing what is going wrong.

Another suggestion, fill in data manually in test mode and see if the mapping is giving expected results or not. If not, please post/attach the errors you're getting there.

Thanks,

Abhishek

[xinjiang_li · Accepted solution]

The message popped up is because there is a character "-" before the node "<MT_File>".

From the payload we can see there is a problem in your communication channel. Please check relevant parameter.

[vishnu_pallamreddy · Accepted solution]

Hi Rajesh,

If i test with Source also i am getting same issue....

Another suggestion, fill in data manually in test mode and see if the mapping is giving expected results or not. If not, please post/attach the errors you're getting there.

If i test like that i am getting desired output...

[vishnu_pallamreddy · Accepted solution]

Hi xinjiang li,

Could you please tell me the relevant parameters?????

[abranjan · Accepted solution]

Hi Vishnu,

Its Abhishek .

Btw, if you're getting desired output using manual entry, then I would suggest open the source xml from message mapping and the payload (right click, view source) xml. Compare both of them and find out what is the difference.

Ideally, if the xml's are same, it will never fail in test mode. So, maybe some tag is incorrect in the payload. Comparison will help you identify the issue.

Thanks,

Abhishek

[vishnu_pallamreddy · Accepted solution]

RWB Pay load:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

<ns:MT_File xmlns:ns="http://mouritech.com/file2idocsender">

<MT_File>

<Value>1</Value>

<Reason>test</Reason>

</MT_File>

</ns:MT_File>

mapping payload:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<ns0:MT_File xmlns:ns0="http://mouritech.com/file2idocsender">

   <Value/>

   <Reason/>

</ns0:MT_File>

both are different....

[xinjiang_li · Accepted solution]

Hi ,

I'm afraid I'm wrong, seems your payload in RWB (before mapping) is correct, so now there maybe something wrong with your mapping. Maybe three reasons:

1. graphical mapping is not correct. Try to test the mapping with the RWB payload.

2. interface mapping is not correlated in the integration directory, which means the mapping does not work at all.

3. mapping is ok, but the rfc connection from PI to ECC has problem, so check out whether the entries exist in TCODE SM58.

[abranjan · Accepted solution]

Hi Vishnu,

FCC can be the issue here. If you see, you're getting one extra tag <MT_File> in RWB.

You can try this:

Simply create one subnode 'Record' under MT_File. So, both your fields (Value, Reason) will come under 'Record'. Also, set the RecordsetStructure as 'Record,*' in FCC.

(You can also give the subnode name as 'MT_File' rather then 'Record' and then you won't have to change things in FCC, but a meaningful name helps in better readability while troubleshooting.)

Try testing the interface after that.

Thanks,

Abhishek