<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Using TYPE and LIKE while defining a local structure. in Application Development and Automation Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.sap.com/t5/application-development-and-automation-discussions/using-type-and-like-while-defining-a-local-structure/m-p/11111405#M1904117</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Everyone,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I was debugging an ALV report, the output internal table had fields with mixed definitions. Some fields were defined as LIKE and some under TYPE (BUKRS LIKE ....; LIFNR TYPE... ). The data was flowing correctly into the output internal table, but the ' REUSE_ALV_FIELDCATALOG_MERGE' is not recognizing the fields that are defined with a TYPE statement. As a result these fields were not getting displayed in the ALV output. I have changed all the definitions to LIKE and everything is working fine and all the fields are getting displayed correctly.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So my question is - We cannot use mixed definitions while defining an internal structure? If there are mixed defenitions fieldcatalog_merge will recognize only LIKE?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The question might be silly, but I want to gain some knowledge on this. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Subhash.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 21:53:24 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>dsubhash567</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-05-14T21:53:24Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Using TYPE and LIKE while defining a local structure.</title>
      <link>https://community.sap.com/t5/application-development-and-automation-discussions/using-type-and-like-while-defining-a-local-structure/m-p/11111405#M1904117</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Everyone,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I was debugging an ALV report, the output internal table had fields with mixed definitions. Some fields were defined as LIKE and some under TYPE (BUKRS LIKE ....; LIFNR TYPE... ). The data was flowing correctly into the output internal table, but the ' REUSE_ALV_FIELDCATALOG_MERGE' is not recognizing the fields that are defined with a TYPE statement. As a result these fields were not getting displayed in the ALV output. I have changed all the definitions to LIKE and everything is working fine and all the fields are getting displayed correctly.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So my question is - We cannot use mixed definitions while defining an internal structure? If there are mixed defenitions fieldcatalog_merge will recognize only LIKE?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The question might be silly, but I want to gain some knowledge on this. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Subhash.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 21:53:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.sap.com/t5/application-development-and-automation-discussions/using-type-and-like-while-defining-a-local-structure/m-p/11111405#M1904117</guid>
      <dc:creator>dsubhash567</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-05-14T21:53:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Using TYPE and LIKE while defining a local structure.</title>
      <link>https://community.sap.com/t5/application-development-and-automation-discussions/using-type-and-like-while-defining-a-local-structure/m-p/11111406#M1904118</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Please check the FM REUSE_ALV_FIELDCATALOG_MERGE documentation and you will know what you need.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;H3&gt;Short Text&lt;/H3&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Create field catalog from dictionary structure or internal table&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;H5&gt;Functionality&lt;/H5&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Supports the creation of the field catalog for the ALV function modules based &lt;BR /&gt;either on a structure or table defined in the ABAP Data Dictionary, or a &lt;BR /&gt;program-internal table.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The program-internal table must either be in a TOP Include or its Include &lt;BR /&gt;must be specified explicitly in the interface.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The variant based on a program-internal table should only be used for rapid &lt;BR /&gt;prototyping since the following restrictions apply:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Performance is affected since the code of the table definition must always &lt;BR /&gt;be read and interpreted at runtime.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Dictionary references are only considered if the keywords LIKE or INCLUDE &lt;BR /&gt;STRUCTURE (not TYPE) are used.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If the field catalog contains more than 90 fields, the first 90 fields are &lt;BR /&gt;output in the list by default whereas the remaining fields are only available in &lt;BR /&gt;the field selection.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If the field catalog is passed with values, they are merged with the &lt;BR /&gt;'automatically' found information.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2015 04:38:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.sap.com/t5/application-development-and-automation-discussions/using-type-and-like-while-defining-a-local-structure/m-p/11111406#M1904118</guid>
      <dc:creator>Former Member</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-05-15T04:38:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

