Skip to content

[EDOT] Add new object EDOT #682

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 35 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[EDOT] Add new object EDOT #682

wants to merge 35 commits into from

Conversation

i506210
Copy link

@i506210 i506210 commented Jan 28, 2025

No description provided.

@i506210 i506210 changed the title [EDOTFeature/edot [EDOT] Add new object EDOT Jan 28, 2025
Copy link
Member

@Markus1812 Markus1812 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for your pull request. This pull request still contains both, EDOI and EDOT (with the .DS_Store). Please remove all the unwanted files here.

Please note, that for the title and description, we use title case and sentence case respectively. I've not marked every occurrence but if you could please adjust that.

"! <p class="shorttext">Interface Version</p>    "<- title (title case)
"! Interface version                             "<- description (sentence case)

Copy link
Contributor

@schneidermic0 schneidermic0 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have also added some comments and questions

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Example is missing

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think having an example would also help me for the review

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Somehow I am unable to generate example, I created class and Transformation but its not clear to me in the report what object to be mentioned as input.

@i506210 i506210 requested a review from schneidermic0 February 6, 2025 09:35
@i506210
Copy link
Author

i506210 commented Feb 11, 2025

I have also added some comments and questions

I corrected and pushed the latest changes, can you please check

Copy link

@GuilhermeSaraiva96 GuilhermeSaraiva96 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for submitting the AFF and changes. Most of my comments are minors and just a personal touch, up to you if you want to implement them :)
However, I always like to mention that AFF is a readable representation of an ABAP Object Type, and the more coherent the field names are, the better!


TYPES:
"! <p class="shorttext">SRAL Configuration Type</p>
"! SRAL configuration type

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what does SRAL stand for? Apologies if I might have missed it

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hello GuilhermeSaraiva,

Its about Read access logging setup. For more information
https://help.sap.com/doc/863abf53d25ab64ce10000000a174cb4/700_SFIN3E%20006/en-US/b10184538ca0e647e10000000a441470.html

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What do you think is most common Term for the end user? RAL, SRAL or Read Access Logging? We want to avoid that internal terminology is present in AFF. Could you please confirm it with your UA?

@GuilhermeSaraiva96 GuilhermeSaraiva96 added ux-review ready AFF is ready for UX review new-object This is a new object type added to AFF and removed ux-review ready AFF is ready for UX review labels Mar 11, 2025
TYPES:
"! <p class="shorttext">General Information</p>
"! General information
BEGIN OF ty_edoc_information,

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
BEGIN OF ty_edoc_information,
BEGIN OF ty_general_information,

general_information TYPE ty_edoc_information,
"! <p class="shorttext">Additional Selection Fields</p>
"! Additional selection fields of validation report
sral_configuration TYPE ty_sral_configurations,

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The field name is called sral_configuration, but the title is: Additional Selection Fields. These are not coherent, which would be best for the end user to understand what kind of field this is?


TYPES:
"! <p class="shorttext">SRAL Configuration Type</p>
"! SRAL configuration type

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What do you think is most common Term for the end user? RAL, SRAL or Read Access Logging? We want to avoid that internal terminology is present in AFF. Could you please confirm it with your UA?

Copy link

@GuilhermeSaraiva96 GuilhermeSaraiva96 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, looks good!

@GuilhermeSaraiva96 GuilhermeSaraiva96 added the ux-review ready AFF is ready for UX review label Mar 31, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@schneidermic0 schneidermic0 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the update. See my questions and comments

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Before merging, we should als create an issue for the missing example

Comment on lines 47 to 55
"! <p class="shorttext">eDocument Table Name</p>
"! eDocument table name
table_name TYPE zif_aff_types_v1=>ty_object_name_30,
"! <p class="shorttext">Preprocess Before Archiving</p>
"! Preprocess before archiving
is_archive_preprocess_needed TYPE abap_bool,
"! <p class="shorttext">Created in Contingency Mode</p>
"! Created in contingency mode
is_created_in_contingency_mode TYPE abap_bool,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would you align the field names and the title's please?

Furthermore, is any field of general_information a $required field?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

unfortunately only name & description are manditory which are not part of gerneral information anymore.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

corrected the field names and labels

Comment on lines 14 to 17
"! <p class="shorttext">File Structure Type</p>
"! File structure type
"! $required
file_structure TYPE c LENGTH 30,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should description and field name be aligned?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

corrected

Comment on lines +10 to +13
"! <p class="shorttext">File Type</p>
"! File type
"! $required
file_type TYPE c LENGTH 10,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are file types defined by a hard set of values? If so, we could use an enumeration here.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Its not hard set of values but coming from check table, we need to have value help instead fixed domain, I think it will be covered during development

Comment on lines 8 to 10
"tableName": "EDOFRINV",
"isArchivePreprocessNeeded": false,
"isCreatedInContingencyMode": false
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Boolean values with value false aren't serialized by default.

Suggested change
"tableName": "EDOFRINV",
"isArchivePreprocessNeeded": false,
"isCreatedInContingencyMode": false
"tableName": "EDOFRINV"

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I didn't understand the comments, do I need to make any change here

Comment on lines 16 to 17
"fileDescription": "eDocument France: Invoice Request",
"isCloudRelevant": false
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Boolean values with value false aren't serialized by default.

Suggested change
"fileDescription": "eDocument France: Invoice Request",
"isCloudRelevant": false
"fileDescription": "eDocument France: Invoice Request"

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

same - I didn't understand the comments, do I need to make any change here

Comment on lines 12 to 16
"readAccessLogConfigurations": [
{
"fileType": "REQUEST",
"fileStructure": "EDO_FR_INV_INVOICE_TYPE",
"fileDescription": "eDocument France: Invoice Request",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is just an idea. I am not sure whether this makes sense:

Almost all fields start with "file". I am not sure, but I was wondering whether it make sense to add "files" to the name of the array.

@wurzka wurzka requested a review from a team July 14, 2025 11:36
Copy link
Contributor

@wurzka wurzka left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please see my comment

@i506210
Copy link
Author

i506210 commented Jul 25, 2025

I am getting JSON schema error without providing detailed errors. In addition, always EOL, EOF error is appearing, not sure how to resolve

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
new-object This is a new object type added to AFF ux-review ready AFF is ready for UX review
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants