topic SPDD and workbench request in Application Development and Automation Discussions

SPDD and workbench request

Former Member — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:01:53 GMT

Hi all,

my client has made an upgrade and then launched the transaction SPDD. A standard data element was changed before upgrade from CHAR25 to CHAR60 and during the SPDD process the person in charge of this work was wrong, she agreed to return to CHAR25. Not a good idea because my client can potentially lose data, so what can i do ? I thought to delete the entry for the data element, but in the workbench request there are no objects, apparently it's normal because the request is generated automaticaly, it's true ??

Can you give other idea to resolve my problem ?

Cheers

Re: SPDD and workbench request

former_member214857 — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:01:02 GMT

Once SPDD identifies that some objects where modified, usually system will offer 3 options:

1. Reset to original objet

2. Keep object as it is

3. Merge modifications with new code delivered for this object

In this case, as it was decided to Reset to original, returning to old length, system generated a request considering this option. So the best decision for this case to avoid data loss is keep length as 60

Best regards

Re: SPDD and workbench request

vijaymanikandan — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:04:05 GMT

First check if this Object has been reset to original. Use transaction SE95_UTIL to check this.

Next depending on which phase you are you can decide the next step. If you have still not progressed from SPDD then you can change the data element via se11 to char60. In case if you have completed your upgrade then you might have lost the data already. Check the where used list of this Data element and check the impact. If this is a Development system then its fine and your data loss is still acceptable. At any cost you would need to identify the reason why they wanted Char60 and do Adopt to Modification.

Regards,

Vijay V

Re: SPDD and workbench request

Former Member — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 09:48:40 GMT

This message was moderated.