cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

SOA Error: RABAX occurred on server side, Dump CX_BGRFC_INVALID_DESTINATION - urgent

DieterLorenz
Active Participant

Hello together,

we have an error on the 7.01 ERP System with SOA Messages.

We have a remote function module build and published with the soa manager. The local execution works fine.

From the SOAUI Software Test Tool get the error message:

<soap:Envelope xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/">

<soap:Body>

<soap:Fault>

<faultcode>soap:Server</faultcode>

         <faultstring xml:lang="en">RABAX occurred on server side</faultstring>

         <detail>

            <sap:Rabax xmlns:sap="http://www.sap.com/webas/710/soap/runtime/abap/fault/generic">

<SYDATUM>20160623</SYDATUM>

<SYUZEIT>082814</SYUZEIT>

<ERRORCODE>UNCAUGHT_EXCEPTION</ERRORCODE>

            </sap:Rabax>

         </detail>

</soap:Fault>

</soap:Body>

</soap:Envelope>

ST22 reports error like this:

CX_BGRFC_INVALID_DESTINATION

The destination ‘NONE‘ are not supported from the background RFC .

We checked the Notes and execute the solution, but no success.

Note: 1529377 – Shortdump with Exception CX_BGRFC_INVALID_DESTINATION

Note: 1059303 – Web Service with Runtime error UNCAUGHT_EXCEPTION

Where we can set the Destination that the function "CHECK_DEST_NAME_INBOUND” expects ?

Is there anybody who can help in the urgent problem ?

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

DieterLorenz
Active Participant
0 Kudos

TA SBGRFCCONF and  Report SRT_ADMIN help to config the bgdestination that was missing.

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

Harish
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi,

Please check the below discussion

CX_BGRFC_INVALID_DESTINATION during outbound ab... | SCN

regards,

Harish

DieterLorenz
Active Participant
0 Kudos

Thanks for your quick help. The transaction SBGRFCMAINIDST is not available in the system. Ich check the SBGRFCCONF and compare this with a working SOA system.

DieterLorenz
Active Participant
0 Kudos

The working SOA system is similar regarding the SBGRFCCONF. Strange !