cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Outbound EDI PO Change stuck in SM58 with PI 7.31 Single Stack

Former Member
0 Kudos
15,093

Hello Everyone,

I have searched the posts and SAP notes for information on this, but have not found a solution.

This is our first use of the B2B package, and also first time with PI 7.31 single stack.

The scenario is:

outbound Purchase Order (EDI 850) IDOC message type ORDERS; basic type ORDERS05; + an Extension

outbound PO change        (EDI 860) IDOC message type ORDCHG; basic type ORDERS05: + same extension

Both interfaces are sent from the same SAP system;  In the integration builder, there are 2 configuration scenarios, but the following objects are shared by the 2 interfaces:

  -Business Systems (sender, receiver)

  -Sender IDOC channel

  -sending interface and metadata 'ORDERS.ORDERS05.ZORD05EXT'

  -Integrated Configuration Object

In the ICO 'receiver interfaces' tab we set the condition based on IDOC message type 'ORDERS' or 'ORDCHG' to determine the correct mapping operation.      

The outbound purchase order 850 works fine.

The outbound PO change 860 sticks in the SM58 of the sap system with the error

Commit fault: ASJ.ejb.005043 (Failed in component: sap.com/com.sap.aii.ad

.

Most of the information I found pointed to an interface not working at all.  Since the PO interface works, I have compared everything about the 2 interfaces looking for something that would cause the second to fail, all the way from partner profiles in SAP to ESB and IB setup, but do not see anything.

Any information you can share is greatly appreciated.

Robin Aufleger

View Entire Topic
Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Robin,

The error "

Commit fault: ASJ.ejb.005043 (Failed in component: sap.com/com.sap.aii.ad"

is basically because the outbound Idoc is not able to find a corresponding ICO/Iflow {business component/ sender system}

Please check if your condition is met for determining the ICO (sender interface should be ORDCHG.ORDERS05)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Thank you very much Pooja.

The message type should have been ORDCHG as you say, rather than ORDERS. 

Robin Aufleger