Application Development Discussions
Join the discussions or start your own on all things application development, including tools and APIs, programming models, and keeping your skills sharp.
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

ABAP Test Cockpit - Exemption handling for generated objects

Former Member
0 Kudos

We are using the ATC and exemption handling from some months. I think it is a great tool to enhance code quality in general.

But there are some disturbing parts left for the developers. For example they currently have to request exemptions for generated objects like PI proxy objects which cannot be edited. And also there are false positive naming convention findings for constructor methods of exception classes, which cannot be altered.

Is there a "standard" way to exclude generated objects / methods from ATC / CI checks?

(one way which comes into my mind could be to put all the generated objects in one package Z*_GENERATED and request an exemption for the whole package)

Thanks for any help.



Active Participant
0 Kudos

Hi Stefan,

I am suffering the same Issue ..

You also phase these Problems when you copy SAP code and and Include SAP Includes. ...

I thought about a custom object collector, that filters things out, but that will be some work.

Did you came up with a solution?

Greeting from Hamburg

0 Kudos

Hi Stefan!

We use packages for generated objects so that they do not mess around in our other packages. This can easily excluded. Another way is of course if you exclude the prefix you use for generated proxy objects in your SCI profile.


0 Kudos

Hi Florian,

yes that was also my Idea, which works well for some area.

In SAP CRM we have the issue that there are lots of classes generated if you extend the UI, were  changes / overridings are done within theses classes. They are mixed 85% generated code that comes up with issues in the ATC an 15% "own content that I do not want to exclude from ATC.

Any clever Ideas?


0 Kudos

Hi Timo!

Now I remember the UI classes from CRM again. That definitely might be a tricky one. Unless there is noone with a better approach you override SAP's standard check classes and remove some of the methods or check on other patterns to exclude some of the coding. Jürgen was actually describing this very well in another question I raised at SDN a couple of weeks ago:

Anyone with better ideas?


0 Kudos

Hi Florian,

yes to come up with own tests etc could help ... but do we really want that? How many CRMs are out there and they all will suffer the same issues, IF they inspect their code.

The real pain are even those Methods where is lots of SAP Code in that you do not touch, but add your own stuff. Sure everyone will only place on method call an do the whole in a own method, sure... but may be I am a bit nervous ... I would like to have that checked.


0 Kudos

Hi Timo!

yes, This generated code where you are supposed to continue coding are a little bit tricky.

When it comes to ATC and and SAP standard code than customers would like to expect that even SAP had done their homework and writes code which passes their own checks. But that is the same when it comes to standard includes and also package check


0 Kudos

Well we can complain about the SAP Code but that does not help us out.

I do need a solution how to use the ATC on CRM but filter out the SAP Issues effectively

Assemptions would be an option, but will be a lot of work for the developer and Approver for all the standard Code.

Tomorrow I meet with @Stefan_Tanck who works in the same area, we will see what he has got.

0 Kudos

I just participated in an interesting SAP presentation on vulnerability analysis and ATC in general. Maybe can connect you with the right people.

Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hello Stefan,

as far as I know there is no standard way to exclude generated objects. ATC / Code Inspector analyse by default any object that gets transported. Consider a syntax error in generated code, for sure one would get a warning regardless wether the program is handicraft or maintained by a generator. Generated code might also have a direct relation to developer input (for sample BSP). To my impression disabling any analysis just because code is generated might have undesired side effects.

I can imagine that the majority of disturbance is caused by the combination of few pairs of checks and object types. Does this assumption match your expieriences?