2008 Mar 07 10:40 AM
rsbdcbtc_new is available in 4.6C version after the upgrade to ECC 6.0 this program doesn't exists. But rsbdcbtc_new is being called in some Z-programs which throws a dump saying that rsbdcbtc_new does not exists.
1) What is the relevant program for rsbdcbtc_new in ECC6.0?
2) How can we know that? I mean what is the process to know that?
Thanks
Mary
2008 Mar 07 11:14 AM
Hi,
In ECC it is RSBDCBTC .
regards,
-somesh
Reward points if it is helpful
rsbdcbtc_new is available in 4.6C version after the upgrade to ECC 6.0 this program doesn't exists. But rsbdcbtc_new is being called in some Z-programs which throws a dump saying that rsbdcbtc_new does not exists.
1) What is the relevant program for rsbdcbtc_new in ECC6.0?
2) How can we know that? I mean what is the process to know that?
Thanks
Mary
2008 Mar 07 11:14 AM
Hi,
In ECC it is RSBDCBTC .
regards,
-somesh
Reward points if it is helpful
2008 Mar 07 11:17 AM
Hi Somesh,
Thanks for input.
Please let me know what made you think that this program is the relevant replacement for rsbdcbtc_new?
2008 Mar 07 11:25 AM
Have you searched OSS for the same. You may get the new program name in OSS Notes.
Regards,
Atish
2008 Mar 07 11:39 AM
Hi Atish,
Unforunately, there was no relevant OSS note to say what is the relevant program for it.
2008 Mar 07 11:45 AM
Hi Rhode,
Do you have the 4.6C in any sandbox or you got rid of the same?
IF you have then just compare the functionality or code between two programs.
Or you can just replace with this program and ask to test your Z programs. If they are working correctly then it is the new program name
Regards,
Atish
2008 Mar 07 12:03 PM
Atish,
rsbdcbtc_new - about process of BDC, Do you think copying of the rsbdcbtc_new into Z will support the all the new screens in ECC 6.0?*
2008 Mar 07 12:08 PM
Hi,
Copying a standard program should be the last approach.
If you have the standard program then why are you copying it?
I think the program given is the correct one. I am not in front of the system so can't confirm it but someone might have used this that's why suggesting the same.
Regards,
Atish