Problem in IDoc administrative segments while converting IDoc text to IDoc xml

[former_member195202]

Hi Experts,

I am using file channel in PI for converting IDoc flat file into xml. I am using the standard module SAP_XI_IDOC/IDOCFlatToXmlConvertor.

The problem is with IDoc administrative segment which is 63 character long as described below:

Segment name (30) + SAP client (3) + IDoc number (16) + number of SAP segments (6) + Number of the hierarchically higher SAP segment (6) +

+ Hierarchy level (2)  = 63 chars.

Segment name, SAP client, IDoc number is fine. But I need to understand the functionality of 4th and 5th part in the above distribution.

number of SAP segment (excluding the header) --> If I generate an IDoc flat file, this 6 char field is generated as 000001, 000002, 000003 and so on ..

EDI_DC40  1200000000006044381731 3012  OILMAT05

ZZIFS_OILMAT05

ZSD_OILMAT

ZSD_OISAPPDL

LS  PDLCLNT120

SAPIDS001 LS  DDSUD000

20141009143818

20141008121507

E2MARAM007

120000000000604438100000100000002N  1000040

20100408

20140922

ZFER 15121500

EA

199.040

183.040

KG 208.000

L

0002

0.000

0.000

0.000

999

2

E2OILMA001

120000000000604438100000200000103

E2MAKTM001

120000000000604438100000300000103   4Visco 2000 A3/B3 15W-40, 208L E4

E2MAKTM001

120000000000604438100000400000103   DVisco 2000 A3/B3 15W-40, 208L E4

E2MAKTM001

120000000000604438100000500000103   EVisco 2000 A3/B3 15W-40, 208L E4

E2MAKTM001

120000000000604438100000600000103   FVisco 2000 A3/B3 15W-40, 208L E4

E2MAKTM001

120000000000604438100000700000103   GVisco 2000 A3/B3 15W-40, 208L E4

So I expected that same way I could keep it in the IDoc text file which I have to convert into IDoc xml but this is creating a problem. I am not sure what should be correct pattern if I wish to create a file same way as I got from the standard output for IDoc text.If I keep the fields as 000001, 00002, 000003,

I get an error that IDoc could not be parsed properly by the sender channel.

For example, the following file is not read by the channel

EDI_DC40  1201000000000123456413 9011  SHPMNT05	SHPMNT05	SHPADV	SUD	SHPADVSAPIIV	LS  Z4ECLN100 Barloworld	A000000026LS  IIVCLNT001	20141014164458	20141014164458
E2EDT20002	12010000000001234560000010000000112345678900002  301 01ABC123
E2EDL20003	12010000000001234560000020000000200001005559876BNMK	CIFDE STADT	01	14401005	20141014
E2EDL21	120100000000012345600000300000002LF
E2EDT13001	120100000000012345600000400000002010	20141014	20141014
E2EDL24007	120100000000012345600000500000001000010146AF4	E4-PE46XC-205l	AX  SEKRABC54321  CASTROL ANVOL PE 46 XC8.000	EA 1853.200	1982.000	KGM	00020002	05

If I keep some random values for 000001, 000002,000003, 000004 ...in above file (say 000001, 000004, 000006, 000009...), then the file is processed successfully (Idoc text to IDoc xml).

Am I doing something wrong here ?

Thanks,

Ravi.

[engswee · Accepted solution]

Hi Ravi

IDoc flat files can be generated correctly via standard SAP techniques (using file port in ECC or using module in PI.) Just to clarify - are you generating the IDoc flat file manually via some custom programming? If yes, any particular reason for doing so?

Anyway, to answer your queries:-

• Number of SAP segment = Just a running number starting from 000001 for first segment and increments by one for each segment after
• Number of hierarchically higher SAP segment = States the parent segment number that this current segment belongs to

As IDocs are hierarchical objects dependent on their definition, it is very important that the parent segment is set correctly to match the definition.

Using your example above, here is an explanation of the numbering. E2MARAM007 is at the root of the IDoc, which the rest of the segments are under it directly.

However, for your SHPMNT05 file, all the parent segments are 000000, which means all are at the same level at the root. This is not correct if validated against SHPMNT05 definition, E2EDL2 should be under E2EDT2, etc, etc.

If you are generating this manually, you will need to make sure to set the parent segment number correctly based on definition.

Rgds

Eng Swee

[former_member195202 · Accepted solution]

Hi Eng Swee,

Many thanks for your reply. I will check if this was the problem. Will get back soon

Thanks,

Ravi.

[former_member195202 · Accepted solution]

Hi Eng Swee,

I was correcting the file sent by a third party and it had the relationship problem as I stated. I was able to parse the file correctly and understood the rule. Thanks for your help. I have marked your answer as the correct one

Cheers.

Ravi.

[engswee · Accepted solution]

Good to know your issue has been resolved!