on 2021 Apr 08 11:48 AM
Hello,
I went through tutorial Developing for Analytics with BTP ABAP where the analytical query is done on top of a cube and dimensions based on persistent tables.
My question is, can we use for the same purpose a Data Model based on custom or abstract entities accesing data through a remote OData service? Is this something we can achieve by using BDEF/BIMP or implementing an unmanaged query?
Many thanks.
Regards,
Daniel Ojados
Request clarification before answering.
Hi Daniel,
I am currently checking with development for a more detailed answer, but what I can share so far is that it currently will not work because:
a) you are not able to create views on top of a custom entity. (But you would have to do so because you have to create a cube and a query on top of your data source).
b) it is not possible to set the annotations such as
@Analytics.query: true
@Analytics.dataCategory: #CUBE
@Analytics.internalName: #LOCAL
directly in the source code of a custom entity.
But I will check whether such thing can be done / is planned for future releases.
But one question I would have is where your remote OData Service that you want to consume is running on. Is it an on premise SAP system and if yes what release is it running on?
Best regards,
Andre
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hi andre.fischer ,
Many thanks for your prompt response and assistance with this topic.
The remote OData Service is in an OP SAP 1909 that we're using as a sandbox to try out the integration with the BTP platform.
The original question comes with the idea behind of using a BTP application as a hub connecting several different systems, consolidating in runtime a common data model and somehow expose for consumption to SAC. We see quite interesting the idea of being able to create a data model consumible by SAC from the platform, although we see that by being limited to entities based on a persistent layer there are scenarios like the one mentioned that are not applicable ( or possibly we're wrong with our architecture approach! 🙂 )
Looking forward to your comments.
Many thanks again.
Regards,
Daniel
User | Count |
---|---|
66 | |
9 | |
7 | |
6 | |
6 | |
6 | |
5 | |
4 | |
4 | |
3 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.