RFC parameter field values are not reflecting in the destination non-sap system

[former_member282968]

Hi,

I have added three new fields in the existing table parameters of the RFC by extending the structure.The values are showing up in the interface parameters on the execution of the RFC in the SAP system.RFC is getting called by non-sap system. Out of the three fields I have added one of the field value is showing up in the destination non-sap system but other two field values are not showing up.The datatype are same.All the other values of the structure are showing up except for the added 2 fields.

I checked the datatype ( which is CHAR here for the two fields), removed the leading spaces.Checked the connection. Everything is fine.The technical guy of the non-SAP system is clueless about this.Please help me to figure out the issue.

When the numeric value is passed say 5.11 from SAP in the destination its showing as 0.00.If I pass the character value it shows BLANK. But in the RFC output of the SAP I am getting values correctly!!

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Naveen

It sounds like a problem in the non-sap calling system.

Try to redefine/rebuild/reimport (the name depends on what system it is) the object in the non-sap system that handles the RFC (e.g: if the system is JAVA WD then reimport the model).

Regards Shai.

[former_member282968 · Accepted solution]

Hi Shai,

Thanks for the answer.

If that was the case, Non-sap calling system shoudn't have got the value at all for all the three fields that I have added.Here, I have added three fields out of which for one field the value is reflecting for the other two its not.Calling system is .NET which calls RFC directly. As per the technical guy automatically the datatype gets updated in the calling system.

[former_member282968 · Accepted solution]

Hi,

Found the solution. RFC was a copy of a BAPI ,In which one of the view was not selected in the BAPI view header( where we pass 'X' for the views).In the same structure we were passing fields of a different view because of which the values weren't reflecting.

Thanks

Message was edited by: Naveen Srinivasa