cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Need enhancement when saving GRC access request to be able to read Excel attachment

ral_driv
Newcomer
0 Kudos
731

I am a developer who's been given a requirement to enhance GRC access requests at the time they are being saved. When a GRC access request is being saved, I need to develop an enhancement to be able to do the following:

  1. If the request has a certain value in the description, check to see if the request has an Excel attachment.
  2. If there is no Excel attachment on the request, then block the request from being saved.
  3. Otherwise, if the Excel attachment is present, it needs to be able to read the Excel file and do some custom logic with that data.

I have searched for possible enhancements in our GRC system that might satisfy these requirements. I also looked online and found very little useful information relating to GRC enhancements. The only one remotely close I found is a BADI named GRAC_ACREQ_ITEM_VALIDATE. I am guessing this runs when the access request is being validated before being saved. However, it doesn’t appear to bring any data into the method regarding the request’s attachments. Is it still possible to read the request's attachment data from this BADI? Or is there another more appropriate enhancement to use?

Another point to mention is that it doesn’t appear our GRC system has any of the typical function modules for reading Excel files (TEXT_CONVERT_XLS_TO_SAP, ALSM_EXCEL_TO_INTERNAL_TABLE, KCD_EXCEL_OLE_TO_INT_CONVERT, etc.). Obviously those are for reading Excel files from a dialog user’s system and this requirement needs to read the Excel file directly from the GRC access request. Is it even possible to read the contents of an Excel file attached to a GRC access request into an internal table for use in an enhancement? If so, how would that be done?

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

GRCwithRaghu
Explorer
0 Kudos

Hi Reece,

Can you provide more information on which fields you wish to validate? The logic depends on the fields and I can recommend a solution.

Regards,

Raghu Boddu