topic Re: Any luck implementing CTS_REQUEST_CHECK? in Application Development and Automation Discussions

Any luck implementing CTS_REQUEST_CHECK?

Former Member — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:09:46 GMT

I am trying to implement the BAdI CTS_REQUEST_CHECK in a sandbox system. I have initally implemented all methods just with a BREAK-POINT to see when the methods are called. The implementation is active, but it doesn't seem like the methods are called? Have any of you had any luck trying to implement this BAdI? My goal is to check whenever someone modifies attributes of a shared constant class that this modification ends up in a separate transport request.

Best regards,

Anders

Re: Any luck implementing CTS_REQUEST_CHECK?

GauthamV — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:26:34 GMT

Did you read the documentation of badi in SE18 ?


You can use the business add-in CTS_REQUEST_CHECK to make checks when you are 
editing requests.

You can use the following methods:

CHECK_BEFORE_CREATION
This method is called before a request is created and after the creation dialog box. It gives 
you the option to:

make your own checkschange the short text and attributes.
CHECK_BEFORE_RELEASE
This method is called before a request is released. It gives you the option to:

make your own checks (for example, on the objects in the request)
change the short text and attributes.
CHECK_BEFORE_CHANGING_OWNER
This method is called before the owner of the request is changed, and after the confirmation
 dialog box. It gives you the option to make checks.

Further notes

1. SAP may change request types and task types in future releases. The current request types and
 task types are listed in the fixed values of the domain TRFUNCTION.
2. The method CHECK_BEFORE_CREATION is called for all request types, but not for task types. 
The two other methods are called for all request and task types.
3. Only Customizing requests and Workbench requests can have attributes. This means that you 
do not need to fill the attribute table for other request types, it is simply ignored.
4. If you want to stop one of the methods, you can trigger the exception CANCEL.

Re: Any luck implementing CTS_REQUEST_CHECK?

ThomasZloch — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 12:02:34 GMT

I am successfully using an implementation of method CHECK_BEFORE_RELEASE of this BADI.

I assume for your purpose you would require the CHECK_BEFORE_ADD_OBJECTS method. A quick check of the where-used lists did not show any relevant callup points for this method, so maybe there is a gap in the SAP standard. You might want to search for SAP notes or even open a message with them. Please let us know what you found out.

Thomas

P.S. a search for "CHECK_BEFORE_ADD_OBJECTS" returns some previous discussions, e.g. featuring yours truly...

Re: Any luck implementing CTS_REQUEST_CHECK?

Clemenss — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 12:29:21 GMT

Hi Anders,

what transation do you use where you expect which BAdI method to get triggered?

And do not forget to sctivate the BAdI in BAdI Builder, eventually deactivate and reactivate.

Regards

Clemens

Re: Any luck implementing CTS_REQUEST_CHECK?

Former Member — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 11:37:16 GMT

Yes, I did read the documentation. My problem is that one of the methods CHECK_BEFORE_ADD_OBJECTS does not seem to work as advertised.

./Anders

Re: Any luck implementing CTS_REQUEST_CHECK?

Former Member — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 11:42:27 GMT

I have raised a support message with SAP to understand what the current situation is. I think CHECK_BEFORE_ADD_OBJECTS is exactly the method I need. CHECK_BEFORE_RELEASE might be used as some sort of workaround, but the idea is to catch the potential problem before it becomes a problem and to avoid manual manipulation of the transport requests later.

./Anders

Re: Any luck implementing CTS_REQUEST_CHECK?

Former Member — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:32:12 GMT

The reply from SAP support to my customer message was that unfortunately this method was not available for customer use yet, so we will have to think of another solution.

Best regards,

Anders

Re: Any luck implementing CTS_REQUEST_CHECK?

ThomasZloch — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 14:07:13 GMT

Thanks for following up.

Thomas