Modify Table UJ0_NAME_RULE BPC 10.1 Standard

[Former Member]

Dear Experts,

We are trying to allow special character "+" in BPC10.1. As a reminder, this character was allowed in BPC7.5 but is not anymore in BPC10.X

We know it is strongly recommanded to not modify tables UJA_VALID_VAL and UJ0_NAME_RULE but we want to give it a try in sandbox.

So Basis team followed note 1853363 and modified these tables as followed.

UJA_VALID_VAL :

Character "+" was removed from the "INVALID_MBR_ID_CHAR" list

UJ0_NAME_RULE :

Character "+" was removed from the members excluded from the White List as a "MEMB".

Despite these modification, the new member IDs containing "+" are rejected.

As UJ0_NAME_RULE is a new table and the SAP Note does not precise how to modify it, I am not sure the modification is correct.

Do you have any ideas about how to allow this special character in BPC 10.1?

Thank you for your support.

Axel

[damovand]

Hi Axel,

I just would like to remind you that if you use invalid characters, against SAP published documents,  you will be responsible for making them work with every function in BPC.  SAP will not support any problem occurring as the result of invalid characters.

Regards,

Leila

[Former Member]

Hi Axel,

I would not recommend you changing this.

However, to answer your question you need to delete the + at the end as well in rule 92.

Andy

[Former Member]

Hi Andy,

I already deleted a "+" contained in the "[ ]" line 92.

I believe the "+" sign at the end declares the chain of characters included in the "[ ]" as excluded of the white list just like the characters themsleves.
Anyway I tried deleting it too but still have the same issue.

Axel

[former_member186338]

Hi Axel,

What is the reason to insist on allowing "+" in the member id's??? This may result in not working script code or some consolidation steps...

The fact that it was allowed in 7.5 means nothing for 10 and 10.1. "we want to give it a try in sandbox" - also is not a good way - you will not be able to test all possible scenarios (not only current but future also...)

B.R. Vadim

[Former Member]

Hi Vadim,

Thank you for your response.

I am aware of the warnings you mentionned but I want to study all the possibilities.

Finding a major issue when modifying this table would be the best way to tell my customer not to do it.

To do so I need to modify the table.

Do you have any idea about it is supposed to work?

Best Regards,

Axel

[former_member186338]

Hi Axel,

I suppose you will not be able to perform complete testing and to check all scenarios ... And if you will not be able to find some major issue - then what you will tell the customer??

From the other side - "What is the reason to insist on allowing "+" in the member id's???" why not to replace + with some other character...

Vadim