Application Development and Automation Discussions
Join the discussions or start your own on all things application development, including tools and APIs, programming models, and keeping your skills sharp.
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Read only

RSBDCSUB - Batch Input - Job - Authorization

nathalie_michel
Participant
0 Likes
1,122

Dear All,

I want to execute session in background using the program RSBDCSUB, but I want to change the user of the session.

User A creates the Batch input (TC FB03), but doesn't have the authorization to modify an FI document.

User B has this authorization, and execute the BI.

There is no problem if user B execute the session online, but if he use RSBDCSUB, then the system keeps the authorization of user A. The idea is that the USER B creates a job running RSBDCSUB several times a day and we don't want to give the authorization to user A .

Do you know if there is a possibility to do it ?

Thanks for your help

Nathalie

4 REPLIES 4
Read only

former_member226519
Active Contributor
0 Likes
758

when creating the background job (SM36) you can assign a user to a step where you enter report and variant.

Read only

0 Likes
758

Thanks for your answer, but USER B is already assigned. and moreover, if User B run online the program RSBDCSUB, we have the same result, because this program execute the BI in background, and in this case the owner of the session is the the user who created the BI.

Read only

0 Likes
758

creating a BI session usually is done with function module BDC_OPEN_GROUP.

One of the importing parameters is the USERID, usually filled with SY-UNAME (the user who executes the function module/report/transaction) but you could overwrite it with any other valid user. If you don't have a report parameter to set the user different from SY-UNAME you would have to modify the report.

Alternativly a report could be written that changes the user after the session is created.

Read only

0 Likes
758

It's exactly what I 've just done in my program, and it's running, The only pity is that I have the USER B as name on the modification history instead of USER A. But for that I'll find an other solution.

Thanks.