Initial value of 0FISCPER is replaced wrongly

[peter_vonscchubert49]

Hi, after upgrade to BW7.50 SP029 we are faced with the problem, that our exit-variable using initial query proposed value "#" is replaced to "000000". That leads to an error in our coding as it is not interpreted as initial value nor as "#" anymore.

Does anyone have an idea?

  METHOD bi_f_ce_za_0fiscper_006.
* Deklaration
    DATA:
      ls_var_range LIKE LINE OF it_var_range,
      ls_range     TYPE rrrangesid,
      lv_bool      TYPE i.

* Initialisierung
    CLEAR ls_var_range.
    CLEAR ls_range.

* Aus dem Intervall Periode/Geschäftsjahr die Differenz der Anzahl Perioden ermitteln
    READ TABLE it_var_range WITH KEY vnam = cv_bi_ma_i_o_0fiscper_001 INTO ls_var_range.

    IF ls_var_range-low eq '#'
    OR ls_var_range-low IS INITIAL.
      lv_bool = 0.
    ELSE.
      lv_bool = 1.
    ENDIF.

    CLEAR ls_range.
    ls_range-sign  = 'I'.
    ls_range-opt  = 'EQ'.

    ls_range-low = lv_bool.

    APPEND ls_range TO et_range.

  ENDMETHOD.

Regards,

Peter

[roland_szajko · Accepted solution]

Hi Peter

0FISCPER is of type NUMC. The initial value for NUMC is 0. Since 0FISCPER is a NUMC with a length of 7, the initial value is 0000000.

BW did not allowed the usage of # on it's own as a characteristic value, as # represents the type corresponding initial value of a characteristic. So # is only used as a placeholder/mask to display the initial values in queries.

173241-Permitted characters in BW

===================================================

The following characteristic values can never be permitted:

• The value that consists only of the single character '#' is not permitted because the initial input is masked with '#' for variables.

• Values starting with the character '!' are not permitted because the variable entry is deleted at the first position due to this character.

• Values that contain characters that contain the hexadecimal values HEX00 to HEX1F.

===================================================

[peter_vonscchubert49 · Accepted solution]

Hi, we changed the code here and it works. And we will check some notes to verify if we have to redesign our coding concerning exit-variables. Thanks for your help so far. Regards, Peter