2019 Mar 05 11:26 AM
Hi all!
i'm working on a system where TRs need to pass Code Inspector checks in order to be released: so far, so good.
The problem I'm facing is... the checks are preventing me release a CR because it contains some SM30 generated FM pools, hinting issues in standard code!

Has anyone already faced this issue?
2019 Jul 23 11:24 AM
Dear Mr. Milesi,
if I understand your issue correctly, you refer to Code Inspector checks utilized as part of an ATC check? Although I do not know your system credentials (NW release etc.), but please have a look at note 2623855, it might refer to the described issue
Best regards,
Christian Rosenberger
raymond.giuseppi I've even done that. The client specified they didn't want SM30, they wanted editable ALV.
I wrote a nice framework for it. For each table, just create a new implementation of an interface. So after the first one, it's was about 2 hours to make each subsequent one.
2019 Mar 05 12:29 PM
2019 Mar 05 1:16 PM
matthew.billingham i'm SO tempted to step in and add an #EC in the standard code!
>_<
2019 Mar 05 2:26 PM
Hi Simone,
not really a solution, but are you not 'able' to execute the ATC check with the option 'Analyse Generated Table Maintenance Objects' off?
The screen error will not appear then....
2019 Mar 05 2:32 PM
b.wallagh i'm not authorized to change the settings, since it's customer's system with a strict policy.
For this specific case, I explained the issue and I think (and hope) they'll disable the check for a short moment so I can go on with the release.
I fear the moment I have to change any field on those tables!
2019 Mar 05 2:43 PM
hmmm.... well, I would try and persuade them. The checkbox is for SAP generated SM30 coding only and as you say, every time you make a change to the table and re-generate.....
The F1 help says 'The default value is not to analyze generated code of table maintenance.'
(I'm only trying to find you ammunition 😉 )
2019 Mar 05 3:19 PM
2019 Mar 05 3:20 PM
Off topic, but this reminds me of when I started at a new client and they had their own version of ATC (before ATC was invented). I had to do the training.
During which, I not only noticed that I'd be responsible at another place for this ATC-like tool being developed, but the training material was largely what I'd written!
A consultancy (and I know which partner did it), lifted the code from the place where I made it happen (I was a manager then), and took it, as they say here, across the river...
2019 Mar 05 4:44 PM
raymond.giuseppi I've even done that. The client specified they didn't want SM30, they wanted editable ALV.
I wrote a nice framework for it. For each table, just create a new implementation of an interface. So after the first one, it's was about 2 hours to make each subsequent one.
2019 Jul 23 11:24 AM
Dear Mr. Milesi,
if I understand your issue correctly, you refer to Code Inspector checks utilized as part of an ATC check? Although I do not know your system credentials (NW release etc.), but please have a look at note 2623855, it might refer to the described issue
Best regards,
Christian Rosenberger
2019 Jul 23 1:01 PM
Oh gosh!
i'm trouble, right? None calls me Mr Milesi if not to scold me! 😉
I am (was) on S/4 1709 and I'll pass the note to the system administrators, thanks!
| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 6 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 |