Letters of Credit (LC) are critical financial instruments in international trade, providing payment guarantees from banks that protect both exporters and importers by shifting payment risk from the buyer to the bank.
The existing LC processing system operated as a monolithic, synchronous flow. While functional, it had a limitation: when any step failed, the entire process had to restart from the beginning. This created data inconsistency risks, especially with scheduled jobs running every minute, and made debugging and error recovery complex.
The system was designed using a State Transition Architecture with a Step Orchestrator that breaks the LC processing into discrete, manageable steps. This includes:
Each step executes in its own transaction and commits immediately upon success. When a failure occurs, the system can resume from the exact failure point rather than restarting, preserving all previously completed work.
The orchestrator maintains processing state in dedicated tables, caching intermediate results from each step. This ensures that when Step 5 fails (e.g., DMS system is down), the retry can skip Steps 1-4 and proceed directly with the correct cached data from Step 4.
An abstract class provides a consistent framework for all steps, making it easy to add new steps or modify existing ones without impacting the overall flow.
Here's where the story becomes interesting. What would traditionally have taken 4 weeks of development time was completed in less than 2 weeks using LLM assistance, mainly using Claude models.
The most challenging part: restructuring existing synchronous code into discrete steps while maintaining the cache management system.
The LLM:
The result: A pull request containing 60 files, fully tested and ready for code review, all in less than two weeks.
An AI code review bot flagged issues, but rather than hours of back-and-forth:
Backend API changes are difficult to observe and debug. Multiple integration points (AI Service, Adobe Forms, DMS, HANA DB) made it challenging to understand the processing flow.
Solution: A real-time monitoring UI showing step-by-step progress.
Traditional timeline: 5-7 days
With Claude: Close to 3 days
Impact: Instant visibility into processing state, improving debugging and operations
The challenging parts without LLM assistance would have been:
Context
- Tech Stack: [CAP, SAPUI5, Node.js]
Existing Patterns
- [Add to the Context]
Requirements
- [Add Functional Spec to the context with specific area of enhancement]
Sequence Flow
- [Add Sequence Diagram Texts to the context]
Acceptance Criteria
- [Add to the context]
Constraints
- Follow existing naming conventions: [examples]
- Reuse these existing utilities: [list]
- Avoid: [anti-patterns]
Expected Output
- Main code with brief comments
- Unit tests for: [list scenarios]
- No duplicate logic with: [existing files]
- No need of detailed MD file generation. Will explicitly ask for this
Architecture Guidelines
- Pattern: [multi-tier, REST, MVC etc]
- Error handling: [Approach with example]
- Logging: [Approach with example]
LLM technology isn't just about writing code faster, it's about solving architectural challenges, ensuring quality through comprehensive testing, and enabling innovations that traditional timelines wouldn't allow.
By leveraging LLM assistance strategically across design, implementation, testing, and tooling, a production-ready, enterprise-grade framework was available in less than two weeks that would have taken more than a month using traditional approaches. This represents not just efficiency gains, but a fundamental shift in how complex development challenges can be approached.
This is about empowering developers to tackle bigger problems, deliver with high quality, and innovate faster than ever before in much lesser time.
Please refer to the demo to understand how LLM prompt was provided, corrected and eventually the output is accepted:
https://video.sap.com/media/t/1_mn79c4f1
Thank You
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 102 | |
| 43 | |
| 41 | |
| 39 | |
| 39 | |
| 37 | |
| 34 | |
| 34 | |
| 30 | |
| 23 |