topic Re: Code inspector - Extended Naming conventions for programs in Application Development and Automation Discussions

Code inspector - Extended Naming conventions for programs

maarten_duits2 — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 06:25:00 GMT

Hello,

I want to use the Extended Naming Convention for Programs check in SAP Code Inspector. After running a test program i get an errro which i can't solve. I hope somebody can help me with this issue.

The problem is, when i create a class which implements an Interface (also set an Alias for the method) and at the implementation of the Interface method i add the following code:

FIELD-SYMBOLS: <ls_test> type ty_data.

When i run the code inspector with the predefined variant: SAP_GUIDELINE_NAMING_SOURCE the following warning is shown:

Error(SYMBOL) pointing to the above mentiond field-symbol.

When i do the same on another class which doesn't implement an interface i don't get a warning.

I am on a NW 7.02 SP10 system.

I hope somebody can help me.

Kind regards,

Maarten.

Re: Code inspector - Extended Naming conventions for programs

majcon — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 07:38:00 GMT

Hi Maarten,

maybe you use the wrong naming-convention for global and local field-symbols.

This could explain why you got an error in an report, and don´t got an error in an interface/class.

Try to change the FIELD-SYMBOL name from <ls_test> to <gv_test>.

Best regards,

Damir

Re: Code inspector - Extended Naming conventions for programs

maarten_duits2 — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 07:46:29 GMT

Hello Damir,

Thanks for the reply. I did some more research and i think it's a bug in the code inspector check. As mentioned in the original post, i created a class which doesn't implement an interface and when i implement a method, and use the FIELD-SYMBOL statment i don't get an error.

What i did now, is that i removed the ALIASES statement. So the implementation of the interface method looks like lif_code_inspector~do_something. The result is that i don't have any warnings.

My conclusion is, it's a bug. Think a open an OSS Message.

Kind regards,

Maarten.

Re: Code inspector - Extended Naming conventions for programs

majcon — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 07:52:09 GMT

Hi Maarten,

yes maybe it is an bug in the code-inspector...

For a last try, you can play with the Visibility on the TAB 'Aliases'

Best regards,

Damir

Re: Code inspector - Extended Naming conventions for programs

maarten_duits2 — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 09:26:06 GMT

Hello,

Think i did make a mistake. Hope somebody can clear it for me.

The classes i created are local classes. When i create a class as mentiond below

CLASS lcl_test DEFINITION FINAL
PUBLIC SECTION.
INTERFACES lif_if.
ALIASES  get_something for lif_if~some_method.
ENDCLASS

what is the correct way to implement this interface method. Is this option 1 or 2. I ask this, because the syntax checker excepts both, but the code inspector gives warnings with option 2 in relation to my first post (defining local data elements within the method).

Option 1:

CLASS lcl_test IMPLEMENTATION.
     METHOD lif~if.
          writhe some code here.
ENDMETHOD.

Option 2:

CLASS lcl_test IMPLEMENTATION.
METHOD get_something. (name of the alias)
          writhe some code here.
ENDMETHOD.

Thx in advance.

Maarten.

Re: Code inspector - Extended Naming conventions for programs

dirk_wittenberg — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 09:45:09 GMT

Hi Marteen,

i would always implement the interface method according to option 1 jus to avoid confusion for the reader which method is implemented.

Regards,

Dirk

Re: Code inspector - Extended Naming conventions for programs

majcon — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 10:25:17 GMT

Hi Maarten,

for me it both option are valid and also correct.

It matters what context is relevant for your solution.

Personally, I´ve used more Option 2, because it shortened the method name, so it is for me better readable and i can concentrate more on the relevant methodname.

Best regards,

Damir

Re: Code inspector - Extended Naming conventions for programs

maarten_duits2 — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 11:58:20 GMT

All,

Thanks for al the answers.

I will use option 1. This works in the code inspector. I'm doubting if i should open an OSS message. In my opinion option 2 is also valid and should work.

Kind regards,

Maarten.