Displaced content from sender RFC in payload - PI 7.0

[Former Member]

Hello,

we have a strange behaviour here.

After implementing a scenario with HTTP->PI->RFC

which works fine transporting a structure to an R/3, we wanted implement another scenario RFC->PI->HTTP (RFC is async).

Problem when testing it:

The RFC hands over a structure which contains in the first field a order number (so leading zeros are cut).

The cutting of the zeros results in a displacing of the rest of all fields. So filling the payload PI is in some trouble and adds an error code #... in some fields.

This is why we identified the problem, because the error codes run into error during mapping.

We reimported the RFC more than once, changing the structure to be sure that we can se a successful update of the RFC structure in the repository. Everything fine, but the error is still the same.

Now we convert on the R/3 side the order no. field:

Instead of leading zeros we replaced them with '9' ´s.

Then we correct this in mapping.

But this is not a solution!

Is there anybody who had the same effect on his XI/PI using sender RFC?

If you can offer a solution for that..... would be great!

Best regards

Dirk

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Dirk !

Did you try to move that first field to convert it in last field and see if the misplacing still occurs?

Regards,

Matias.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hello,

this is another idea but would do the same as our '9'-solution. It would solve the specific issue but will not remove the problem itself.

We had a hint from somebody in our company internal forum:

"If you had used a custom RFC pls make use of conversion routines for the order no field. in a std rfc this would have been handeled implicitly."

Will discuss this with the developer and come back.

We got the answer:

On R/3 side there is a customer table which provides the data. There is conversion routine ALPHA already added to several fields. But only field "orderno" is resulting in trouble. We do now a move to a workarea based on a new defined structure instead of moving the select result based on the table structure to the RFC. In the structure we defined order no. as a simple CHAR field w/o any conversion behind.

So now it is working!

regards

Dirk

Edited by: Dirk Meinhard on Feb 20, 2008 6:28 PM

[Former Member]

Solution added in my last comment!