Problem in Interface determination for multiple MM

Hi experts,
i designed an IDOC to Jdbc scenario.
The particular thing is that I have TWO message mappings to apply for the same source and same target.
Hence, I have in my directory two scenarios with :
- same Reveicer Determination
- same Interface Determination
- differents Receiver agreements (i have two Communication Channels)
In my interface determination, I have configured a standard Interface determination with my two interface mappings to apply.
My problem is when I send an idoc, the result should be for my two interfaces differents payloads to inject to the database, but I get the same payload for both interfaces with the same namespace...it looks like it only use one Interface mapping instead of both...
It is driving me crazy...
Any help would be greatly appreciated
Kind regards,
Jamal

Hi,
i have the same receiver.
I do have two interface mappings in my interface determination. The problem is that it uses the same for both interface.
If I use enhanced ID, i can only specify one Interface mapping.
What I want :
- sender A - Message mapping 1 - receiver A
- and also sender A - Message mapping 2 - receiver A
when the idoc is sent.
what I have right now (though my configuration seems to be right) :
- sender A - Message mapping 1 - receiver A
- and also sender A - Message mapping 1- receiver A
Thanks a lots,
Jamal

Similar Messages

Problem in Interface Determination

Hi All,
While trying to do webservices using webdynpro i was able to do the repository part without any errors but while trying to do configuration i'm facing a problem in interface determination.
I'm unable to find my interface mapping in the interface determination.
While trying to search for the interface mapping its showing me as "no objects found".
Could anyone help me out in this regard.
Thanks in Advance
Madhu

Hi,
As said by Moorthy, you should able to see interface mapping.You just Copy the interface mapping name from IR and insert at Interface Mapping in interface determination.To insert Interface mapping , right click choose Insert option from context.Save & activate Interface determination.If it is activated successfully every thing is ok.Otherwise once you should check as said by Moorthy and check Namespace of Interface too.Hope this will solve your problem.
Cheers
Tiger Woods
Note:Give the points for helpful answers

Enhanced Interface Determination for IDOCs

Hi All,
I've a query on the usage of Enhanced Interface Determination for IDocs.
I've to create IDocs based on the condition in the Message Mapping i.e. say if recordtype in the source is A then IDoc1 should be created and if recordtype is B then IDoc2 should be created.
Is it possible to use Enhanced Interface Determination to achieve this??.. Because I was told by someone that Enhanced Interface Determination can't be used for IDoc based scenarios though am using External Definitions for the mapping purpose. Please clarify.
Thanks in advance
Regards,
Joe.

Hi Sridhar/ Bhavesh,
Thanks for your prompt reply. I think I wasn't clear in my previous post.
The scenario is the input file has three different record types (3 different structures) and the IDocs should be created based on the record type. I don't think I can use the condition based scenario as the record types are totally different. Please suggest.
Thanks,
Joe.

Error when trying multiple inbound interface determination for IDOC

Hi !
I have this scenario: File -> XI -> IDOC.
For each source file, I need to send multiple idoc packages, all to the same business system, but each package should be the result of different interface mappings.
All mappings have same source and target message types...e.g. source: MT_MyFile, target: CREMAS04.
To avoid creating a generic mapping program, we need to duplicate the current mapping program, make it handle the new case, and then add it as second interface mapping in Interface Determination, with same inbound interface, but different interface mapping, without conditions. All interface mapping should execute.
We are receving this error:
<SAP:Code area="IF_DETERMINATION">CX_ID_PLSRV</SAP:Code>
<SAP:P1>Inbound interface was found more than once (for same sender and receiver) for outbound interface urn:xxxxx/xxxx:.MI_xx_xxxxxxxx_xxx_xx</SAP:P1>
<SAP:Stack>Error when determining the inbound interface: Inbound interface was found more than once (for same sender and receiver) for outbound interface urn:xxxxx/xxxx:.MI_xx_xxxxxxxx_xxx_xx Inbound interface was found more than once (for same sender and receiver) for outbound interface urn:xxxxx/xxxx:.MI_xx_xxxxxxxx_xxx_xx</SAP:Stack>
Any clues?
Regards,
Matias.

Hi Satish !
Thanks.
I need to send different IDOCs to SAME business system.
In Interface determination I need this:
Inbound Interface -
Condition -
Interface Mapping
IF_1 no condition M_1
IF_1 no condition M_2
I need to send BOTH IDOC packages to same business system.
But it keeps throwing the posted error.
Regards,
Matias.

Problem with Expiry Period for Multiple Caches in One Configuration File

I need to have a Cache System with multiple expiry periods, i.e. few records should exist for, lets say, 1 hour, some for 3 hours and others for 6 hours. To achieve it, I am trying to define multiple caches in the config file. Based on the data, I choose the Cache (with appropriate expiry period). Thats where, I am facing this problem. I am able to create the caches in the config file. They have different eviction policies i.e. for Cache1, it is 1 hour and for Cache2, it is 3 Hours. However, the data that is stored in Cache1 is not expired after 1 hour. It expires after the expiry period of other cache i.e.e Cache2.
Plz correct me if I am not following the correct way of achieving the required. I am attaching the config file here. Attachment: near-cache-config1.xml (*To use this attachment you will need to rename 142.bin to near-cache-config1.xml after the download is complete.)

Hi Rajneesh,
In your cache mapping section, you have two wildcard mappings ("*"). These provide an ambiguous mapping for all cache names.
Rather than doing this, you should have a cache mapping for each cache scheme that you are using -- in your case the 1-hour and 3-hour schemes.
I would suggest removing one (or both) of the "*" mappings and adding entries along the lines of:
<pre>
<cache-mapping>
<cache-name>near-1hr-*</cache-name>
<scheme-name>default-near</scheme-name>
</cache-mapping>
<cache-mapping>
<cache-name>near-3hr-*</cache-name>
<scheme-name>default-away</scheme-name>
</cache-mapping>
</pre>
With this scheme, any cache that starts with "near-1hr-" (e.g. "near-1hr-Cache1") will have 1-hour expiry. And any cache that starts with "near-3hr-" will have 3-hour expiry. Or, to map your cache schemes on a per-cache basis, in your case you may replace "near-1hr-*" and "near-3hr-*" with Cache1 and Cache2 (respectively).
Jon Purdy
Tangosol, Inc.

Problem in agent determination for custom wf of contracts

Hi
I've copied standard wf for contracts i.e. 20000079. In my custom wf the step for release contract I've maintained the standard rule 20000029. bcos this rule is assigned for standard one with task 20000172. Am I correct in agent assignment??bcos my agent determination fails and wf goes into error. But if I simulate the rule separately it works fine. So there is no prob in rule,also i've properly binded it with task passing purchasingContract and releasecode.
Could u pls help me.
Thanks

Check that the binding between the workflow and rule are OK. Maybe your workflow is not delivering all the needed parameters for the rule (the same parameters that you are using while simulating the rule).
Another thing that you should check is that make sure that this is not an authorisation problem. It is possible that the rule is executed by the dialog user (not WF-BATCH) that doesn't have enough authorisations to do all the necessary rule logic. Just give remporarily SAP_ALL to the user who is executing the test.
Regards,
Karri

Problem in Account Determination for Increase/Decrease in stock FG

When we procure bought out material from outside and inward the material in plant 4000 for the trading purpose then... the balance sheet FG account increases but the P&L inc/dec account of FG does not change although it decreases when the sell of this part takes place. Thereby creates extra figure. But the same works fine for my 1000 Plant it updates both the Balance Sheet FG Account and P&L Inc/Dec Account for FG
Now .. what can be done to solve this problem.

Hi,
Please check the Following path.
IMG > Logistics - General > Material Master > Basic Settings > Material Types > Define Attributes of Material Types
In this node, check whether the valuation area 4000 permits Value update to GL Master record. Please check your relevant material type.
Regards,
Jigar

Problem in uploading data for multiple company code in FB60

Hi Experts,
I am uploading data to tcode FB60 using bdc. If I have say 2 records in my file with same company code,
It;s successfully posting the invoices.
But if there are records with different company code, it's posting only the first one.
Please suggest me some solution.
Thanks.
Krishan

Hi,
This is a njoy tcode....U have to do some settings before using the tcode....
Go to tcode FB60 and give the company code ( if it is ur first login to the tcode then only it wil ask) .then u will get the screen to enter the document number and other stuffs....
In that screen go to EDIT OPTIONS BUTTON on application tool bar on the right hand upper corner...
U will get another screen in that check the check box which says NO COMPANY CODE PROPOSAL..and click on save .....
After use this tcode for the bdc program and no error will come.
Please let me know if u have any problems...
Regards,
Rohan.
Edited by: Rohan on Feb 2, 2009 12:29 PM

Interface Determination for source file without namespace definition

Hi,
I have the following problem:
I am developing a file to IDoc scenario in AEX 7.31. All design objects in ESR and configuration objects in ID are created and the sender communication channel is running. Now I got a test file. It starts directly with the data elements but does not contain the root element as defined in my data type. To make it clear:
Data Type in ESR:
DT_DatatypeA
-- Record [1..unbounded]
---- Field1
---- Field2
The File looks as follows (it lacks the root element 'DT_Datatype_A'):
<Record>
<Field1>...</Field1>
<Field2>...</Field2>
</Record>
<Record>
<Field1>...</Field1>
<Field2>...</Field2>
</Record>
When I try to send it via PI I get the following error:
When I add the XML root element <ns0:DT_DatatypeA ns="..."> manually to the file (and the corresponding end tag), the message is processed correctly.
How can I solve this issue? The file is created by a legacy system which does not know anything about my PI namespaces.
Thanks in advance!

i am bit confused here.
how does your input look like? i.e when sender generates the files..
is that like below xml?
<Record>
<Field1>...</Field1>
<Field2>...</Field2>
</Record>
<Record>
<Field1>...</Field1>
<Field2>...</Field2>
</Record>
or
is it a flat file? and you use FCC in the sender adapter to convert it into xml?
Field1,Field2
Field1,Field2

Problem while running report for Multiple Language

Hi Friends,
The set up for the apps is done for two languages 1. German 2. English.
I’m printing Invoice Report. It is associated with MLS language function.
It returns US or D (for German) according to the setup.
When I run the report from English User, the report runs fine for MLS language function which returns 'US' and not working for ‘D’ as the template is not being picked up(it completed with status Normal and i'm able to see the output by running 'XML Report Publisher' program)
Similarly when I run the report from German User, the report runs fine for MLS language function which return 'D' and not working for ‘US’.
I have created two template for testing purpose.The setup for the template as follows.
Language English Territory US.
Language German Territory Germany.
There is no effect on the combination of the language and territory.
Please help me...
Regards,
A. Swain

When a report terminates with an error, REPORT_OBJECT_STATUS returns the value "TERMINATED_WITH_ERROR", which is 21 bytes of data, but rep_status is defined as 20 bytes. The 6502 error is due to the data not fitting the variable.
I recommend wrapping the REPORT_OBJECT_STATUS function with a SUBSTR that limits the data returned to 20 bytes, which will ensure the results fit.
For example:
rep_status := SUBSTR(REPORT_OBJECT_STATUS(v_rep), 1, 20);

Condition in Interface Determination giving problem - URGENT!

Hello experts,
In my scenario I have one idoc posted from the SAP R/3 and I need to write max of 3 files in the same receiver file system based on some condition i.e. based on the value of some field in the incoming idoc.
What I have done is in my interface determination, I have given that condition for all the 3 inbound interface. that is in the condition field in interface determination, for each inbound interface I chose that perticular field in idoc and gave the condition for which that interface should run.
Now when I am pusing an idoc, if that idoc contains only one condition than my interface is working fine by creating only that file. I have checked this for all 3 files by sending 3 different conditions in 3 idocs. It creates 3 different files for 3 idocs.
But if I send all 3 conditions in one idoc (since idocs can have multiple segments - in few segments i am giving one condition and in few others the 2nd conditon and in the rest the 3rd condition), I expect all 3 files to be created in my file system with data fulfilluing only that perticular condition. but this is not happening. In interface determination only one of the 3 is getting executed. Rest 2 is ignored and i cannot trace it anywhere (RWB, SXI_MONITOR etc)
I have tried all possible combinations but this is not working if i send in 1 single idoc?
Please help me in solveing this as this is a production issue and they cannot send 3 diffent idoc for 3 conditions. Where am i going wrong?
Waiting for your responses.
Thanks,
Yash

Hi Jakub,
My scenario is one idoc say IDOC 1 and 3 files says FILE1, FILE2 and FILE3. Now the target message type for these three files are MT_FILE1, MT_FILE2 and MT_FILE3 (3 different message types).
The only catch point here is i have 2 different interface for creating FILE3 (same message type but different mapping, interface etc). Each interface is based on a condition.
Now when I send one doc which includes condition for only FILE1 and FILE2, it creates 2 file.
If I have condition of only FILE3 (one condition of FILE 3 as FILE3 has 2 conditions) and FILE2, it creates both files.
If I have both condition for FILE3 and FILE2, it creates FILE3 with only one condition and FILE2.
If i have condition for FILE1, FILE2 and both conditions for FILE3, it creates FILE1 and FILE2 both no FILE3 at all.
I guess the problem might be that I have same message type for both conditions for FILE3 but I m not sure. Let me try by creating seperate message type for both and see. But is there any other problem?
Yash

EOIO Problem in the Interface Determination

Hi All,
I have two different source systems (BUSSYS111 , BUSSYS222) and one target system BUSSYS999 (SAP System). I have two different mappings in each interface
Interface 1:
BUSSYS111 -> BUSSYS999 (file1 -> RFC, file1 -> JDBC, without BPM, split mapping)
Interface mappings:
Flow1 : BUSSYS111_File_To_BUSSYS999 (FILE -> RFC)
Flow2 : BUSSYS111_FILE_TO_BUSSYS111 (File -> JDBC)
Flow2 should execute only if the Flow1 is successful (RFC call is successful).
Interface Determination for Interface 1
Sender: BUSSYS111
Interface: Source Interface1
Receiver : BUSSYS999
Maintain Order at runtime Checked.
Receiver Interfaces
BUSSYS111_File_To_BUSSYS999 (Result of Flow1 & Flow2)
BUSSYS111_FILE_TO_BUSSYS111
The queue that is getting generated is *XISERIALIZE0011_BUSSYS999*_ (EOIO)
Interface 2:
BUSSYS222 -> BUSSYS999 (file1 -> RFC, file1 -> JDBC, without BPM, split mapping)
Interface mappings:
Flow1 : BUSSYS222_File_To_BUSSYS999 (FILE -> RFC)
Flow2 : BUSSYS222_FILE_TO_BUSSYS111 (File -> JDBC)
Flow2 should execute only if the Flow1 is successful (RFC call is successful).
Interface Determination for Interface 1
Sender: BUSSYS222
Interface: Source Interface1
Receiver : BUSSYS999
Maintain Order at runtime Checked.
Receiver Interfaces
BUSSYS222_File_To_BUSSYS999 (Result of Flow1 & Flow2)
BUSSYS222_FILE_TO_BUSSYS222
The problem here is in both the cases above, the interfaces seems to be independant. But sometimes for some messages the same queue *XISERIALIZE0011_BUSSYS999*_ is used and for some, a different queue is generated.and if the same queue is used in both the cases, the first interface fails, then the second one is going into holding state.
Can any one help to resolve this issue without going for the BPM (as it would be a design change) and it is already in production.
Thanks in Advance
Anil

Hi,
in the documentation
Interface Determination - Enabling Application-to-Application Processes - SAP Library
its mentioned as
You specify manually to which inbound interface at the receiver the message is to be forwarded. You can also specify the mapping that is to be executed. If you specify more than one inbound interface, you can specify conditions for forwarding the message to the inbound interfaces. These conditions are evaluated at runtime.
so better to raised it to SAP.
Reg,
avinash M

Mysterious routing problem / interface determination

Hi,
I have a very very strange routing problem with XI.
A message is sent from R/3 to XI and then send via adapter to an external party. The routing is configured well. But sometimes I have the following problem:
A message is received by XI (from R/3). The receiver is determinated. Although an interface determination and receiver agreement is configured, the trace shows "no interface determination fpr party xyz and service abc found". The very strange thing is that finally the receiver interface DELINS.DELFOR01 with namespace urn:sap-com:document:sap:idoc:messages is set!!
Finally, the error message is "no receiver agreement found for "... DELINS.DELFOR01, urn:sap-com:document:sap:idoc:messages", which is reasonable because this receiver interface has never ever been configured!
Any idea why the interface determination cannot be found and nevertheless a completely wrong receiver interface is set?
This error occurs just sometimes for certain partners, but not always with all messages for these partners!
Help appreciated!
Christopher

Hi,
all routing objects are 100% correct. Particularly the receiver service has definitely no DELINS.DELFOR01 interface, but nevertheless the Integration Runtime tries to send the message to this interface. Another strange thing is that in the trace there is the warning "no interface determination for party xxx and service xxx found".
By the way: The Receiver Determination was configured to terminate message processing when no receiver can be found.
CHRIS

Interface Determination causing issue in Receiver Determination

Hi
I am having an issue with interface and receiver determination as follows:
- Inbound message may be sent to two receivers.
- Message gets sent to first receiver, fails during interface determination. There are multiple inbound interfaces found based on a set of XPATH conditions. This creates an error 'Inbound interface found more than once for outbound interface '. That is itself is not the issue.
- Issue is that the message is stopped from going to the other receiver even if there are no issues in the interface determination for that receiver.
Is there a way to resolve this? Appreciate any help. Thx, Duncan

Again, thanks for the replies.
MONI for RD
- <Trace level="1" type="B" name="CL_XMS_MAIN-CALL_PLSRV_LOCAL">
- <Trace level="1" type="B" name="CL_RD_PLSRV-ENTER_PLSRV">
<Trace level="1" type="T">R E C E I V E R - D E T E R M I N A T I O N</Trace>
<Trace level="1" type="T">Cache Content is up to date</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">Start without given receiver</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">Classic Receiver Determination via Rules.</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">Check conditions for rule line no. 1</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">...create rule engine</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">...call rule engine for Condition %CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:despatchAdvice")% EX and %CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:despatchAdvice/deliveryNote/referenceIdentification")% CE COSTCENTRE or %CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:despatchAdvice")% EX and %CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:despatchAdvice/deliveryNote/referenceIdentification")% CE INTERPLANT or %CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:despatchAdvice")% EX and %CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:despatchAdvice/deliveryNote/referenceIdentification")% CE INTERPLANT_ONESTEP or %CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:despatchAdvice")% EX and %CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:despatchAdvice/deliveryNote/referenceIdentification")% CE INTRAPLANT or %CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:despatchAdvice")% EX and %CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:despatchAdvice/deliveryNote/referenceIdentification")% CE INTRAPLANT_ONESTEP or %CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:receivingAdvice")% EX or %CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:inventoryActivityOrInventoryStatus")% EX</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">......extracting (new) for Extractor: XP /p2:despatchAdvice</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">......extracting values found: 0</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">......extracting (new) for Extractor: XP /p2:receivingAdvice</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">......extracting values found: 1</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">...valid Receiver with Condition: - GLR430</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">Check conditions for rule line no. 2</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">...call rule engine for Condition %CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:despatchAdvice")% EX and %CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:despatchAdvice/deliveryNote/referenceIdentification")% NE COSTCENTRE and %CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:despatchAdvice/deliveryNote/referenceIdentification")% NE INTERPLANT and %CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:despatchAdvice/deliveryNote/referenceIdentification")% NE INTERPLANT_ONESTEP and %CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:despatchAdvice/deliveryNote/referenceIdentification")% NE INTRAPLANT and %CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:despatchAdvice/deliveryNote/referenceIdentification")% NE INTRAPLANT_ONESTEP</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">...invalid Receiver: P_3PL_XML_ME_ODTH - despatchAdviceToE1EDT20</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">Check conditions for rule line no. 3</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">...valid Receiver w/o Condition: P_3PL_XML_ME_ODTH - S_HTTP</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">No Receiver found behaviour: 0</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">Number of Receivers:2</Trace>
</Trace>
</Trace>
</Trace>
Here, you see that both receivers are found.
MONI for ID
<Trace level="1" type="B" name="PLSRV_INTERFACE_DETERMINATION" />
- 
<Trace level="1" type="Timestamp">2007-02-26T20:06:49Z CET Start of pipeline service processing PLSRVID= PLSRV_INTERFACE_DETERMINATION</Trace>
- <Trace level="1" type="B" name="CL_XMS_MAIN-CALL_PLSRV">
<Trace level="3" type="T">Calling pipeline service: PLSRV_INTERFACE_DETERMINATION</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">Reading Pipeline-Service specification...</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T" />
<Trace level="3" type="T">Pipeline service specification (table SXMSPLSRV)</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">PLSRVID = PLSRV_INTERFACE_DETERMINATION</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">PLSRVTYPE =</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">ADRESSMOD = LOCAL</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">P_CLASS = CL_ID_PLSRV</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">P_IFNAME = IF_XMS_PLSRV</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">P_METHOD = ENTER_PLSRV</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">FL_LOG =</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">FL_DUMMY = 0</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T" />
<Trace level="1" type="B" name="CL_XMS_MAIN-CALL_PLSRV_LOCAL" />
- 
- <Trace level="1" type="B" name="CL_ID_PLSRV-ENTER_PLSRV">
<Trace level="1" type="T">I N T E R F A C E - D E T E R M I N A T I O N</Trace>
<Trace level="1" type="T">Cache Content is up to date</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">Check conditions for (Inb: Party Srvc If) GLR430 WMMBXY.WMMBID01</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">...create rule engine</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">...call rule engine for Condition%CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p1:inventoryActivityOrInventoryStatus/inventoryDocumentType")% CE INVENTORY_STATUS</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">......extracting (new) for Extractor: XP /p1:inventoryActivityOrInventoryStatus/inventoryDocumentType</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">......extracting values found: 0</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">...invalid InbIf: WMMBXY.WMMBID01</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">Check conditions for (Inb: Party Srvc If) GLR430 WMMBXY.WMMBID01</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">...call rule engine for Condition%CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p1:inventoryActivityOrInventoryStatus/inventoryDocumentType")% CE INVENTORY_ACTIVITY</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">......extracting (new) for Extractor: XP /p1:inventoryActivityOrInventoryStatus/inventoryDocumentType</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">......extracting values found: 0</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">...invalid InbIf: WMMBXY.WMMBID01</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">Check conditions for (Inb: Party Srvc If) GLR430 WMMBXY.WMMBID01</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">...call rule engine for Condition%CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:receivingAdvice/receivingAdviceItemContainmentLineItem/purchaseOrder/documentReference/uniqueCreatorIdentification")% EX</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">......extracting (new) for Extractor: XP /p2:receivingAdvice/receivingAdviceItemContainmentLineItem/purchaseOrder/documentReference/uniqueCreatorIdentification</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">......extracting values found: 2</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">...valid InbIf with Condition: WMMBXY.WMMBID01</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">Check conditions for (Inb: Party Srvc If) GLR430 WMMBXY.WMMBID01</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">...call rule engine for Condition%CL_SAI_SWF_RULE_ENGINE.MSG_GET(MSG=&_MSG&;NSP=&_NSM&;XPATH="/p2:receivingAdvice/carrier/additionalPartyIdentification/additionalPartyIdentificationValue")% CE SHUTTLE</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">......extracting (new) for Extractor: XP /p2:receivingAdvice/carrier/additionalPartyIdentification/additionalPartyIdentificationValue</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">......extracting values found: 1</Trace>
<Trace level="2" type="T">...valid InbIf with Condition: WMMBXY.WMMBID01</Trace>
</Trace>
</Trace>
- <Trace level="1" type="B" name="CL_XMS_MAIN-WRITE_MESSAGE_LOG_TO_PERSIST">
<Trace level="3" type="T">Persisting message after plsrv call</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">Message-Version = 002</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">Message version 002</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">Pipeline CENTRAL</Trace>
</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="System_Error">Error exception return from pipeline processing!</Trace>
<Trace level="1" type="B" name="CL_XMS_MAIN-WRITE_MESSAGE_TO_PERSIST" />
- 
<Trace level="3" type="T">Persisting message Status = 014</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">Message version 003</Trace>
<Trace level="3" type="T">Pipeline CENTRAL</Trace>
</SAP:Trace>
Here, you see that the ID runs for the first receiver. It hits an error because two conditions on the ID for the first receiver are satisfied. However, it then stops rather than allow the processing for the other receiver to continue.
Any ideas? Thx, Duncan

Error with Enhanced Interface determination

Hi Experts,
In enhanced interface determination for message splitting w/o BPM, i have given the interface mapping.
But while testing the configuration.......... i am getiing an error at Interface Determination & Mapping which is not showing any processing log.
My mapping program works fine.
could anyone tell me where the problem is....

Hi,
Can you post the error message that you are getting....it will help experts solve your problem accurately.
Regards,
Abhishek.

Problem in Interface determination for multiple MM

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for