Rule Set: Exception!!. No relavent language message available in database

I generated all the rules, and then went into the Rule Architect and clicked on Action Rules, as I wanted to see them. It ran for sometime and then showed me the rules and I noticed, in the output, as follows.
Rule ID Conflicting Actions     System Status
S02807C Updating Unconfirmed Sales Documents(V_V1)
        Sandbox environments    Enable
        Park Outgoing Credit Notes(FV75)
        Sandbox environments    Enable
Risk: Create a credit memo then clear the customer to prompt a payment. (S029)
Rule Set: Exception!!. No relavent language message available in database for :0295
This was the case for every action rule. As noted above, the Rule ID had been generated. I tried to reload the CC5.3_messages.txt file, but it didn't change anything.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Santosh

Hi Santosh,
From CC_5.3MESSAGES.TXT, SP05 and above.
Error message 0295 in english = All
Kind Regards,
Vit
Edited by: Vit Vesely on Mar 13, 2009 9:29 AM
Edited by: Vit Vesely on Mar 13, 2009 9:29 AM

Similar Messages

Updation of Rule-set in GRC10

Hi,
There is a requirement for us to update few risks(objects within the risk) for our non-business ruleset. What is the best suggested method to do this?
->Directly update from NWBC
->Download Rule-set and upload from SPRO
->Transport
If any body can share their suggestions and steps, it would be great.
Thanks,
Sabitha

Hello Sabitha,
This is because you haven't created the connectors in DEV. do you have that connectors in SM59?? I recoomend to create the connectors and associate the to the logical system just to keep all the systems with the same info. you can create the connectors but it's not neccesary to fill all the data in SM59. Just create the connector with the name would be fine.
If i modify the ruleset based on the connector group in development and transport the ruleset would all the physical systems still be listed in the drop down in Quality and Prod
Yes, this will be deleted only if you transport the logical system configuration from DEV and it's not related to SoD rules transport.
If we modify the ruleset based on connector group in development and transport , would it cause any inconsistency as it looks like the Quality and Prod the physical connectors are linked to the ruleset
No. if you are working with the logical system and you haven't uploaded rules to the physical ones it has no effect.
From your comment I understand that it does not matter about the physical systems as rule generation would take care of generating/linking the ruleset based on the systems assigned to the Connector Group/Logical Systems- If this is the case I am wondering why in development system even after the generation of rule-sets the physical systems are not available
This is because you haven't created the connector or you haven't linked the connectors to te connector groups or you haven't enabled the connectors for the auth scenario.
When generating rules the system generates the rules for the necessary logical systems. since you have none in DEV it wont generate rules for your scenario. So in the escenario you are describing in DEV with logical connectors but no physical ones you shouldn't be able to execute a risk analysis there.
Cheers,
Diego.

Exception while calling native profiler (root cause: no message available [

Hi,
We are setting up MAM30 using the new technology (NWMADMIN). During sync. I get the error message "Exception while calling native profiler (root cause: no message available [java.lang.reflect.Invocat...". Can anyone help me on this?
Thanks
Kind regards
Jacob

Hi Jacob,
I once faced this problem(no in MAM though)
I will try to guess the solution to your problem,
1) My first guess would be that, the header file in MAM30 using the 'javah' tool, did not pass the fully qualified name of the class as the argument. The 'javah' tool will not complain and will produce an incorrect header file.
2) The Native method names wouldnt have got a match for the java method names, might be missing the package name. here you need to import the missing ones.
3) Or you would be calling static native methods using objects, it should be accessed in a static way. you can call them directly.
Hope this helps.
Regards
Divya.

Deployment Rule Sets do not properly launch the latest available version from the JRE6 family when the jpi-version is specified by the RIA

Issue Summary
In Java 1.7 Update 71, Java 1.7 Update 72 and Java 1.8 Update 25 Deployment Rule Sets do not properly launch the latest available version from the JRE6 family when the jpi-version is specified by the RIA. We've noticed this with Oracle Forms and Reports 11g where we have forms that specify Java 1.6 Update 20. We used to be able to specify Java 1.6 Update 26 in our Ruleset, but now the only version a that works in our ruleset is Java 1.6 Update 20 which is the same version requested by the JPI-Version attribute of the jar. The long term solution would be to upgrade Oracle Forms and Reports, however this isn't currently in the cards.
RuleSet.xml Test
Ruleset.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
<ruleset version="1.0+">
<rule>
   <id location="*.javatester.org" />
   <action permission="run" version="1.6*" />
</rule>
<ruleset version="1.0+">
<rule>
   <id location="*.internaldomain.name" />
   <action permission="run" version="1.6*" />
</rule>
</ruleset>
Test 1 (Control)
Installed Java Versions:
– 1.7 Update 51 b13 (both x86 and x64 however x86 is invoked)
– 1.6 Update 26 b03 (both x86 and x64 however x86 is invoked)
Deployment Ruleset works as expected for both URLs
Test 2
Installed Java Versions:
– 1.7 Update 72 (both x86 and x64 however x86 is invoked)
– 1.6 Update 26 b03 (both x86 and x64 however x86 is invoked)
The RuleSet works for JavaTester.org however on internaldomain.name we get the following error:
With the trace logging turned on, I suspected the version attribute supplied by the RIA. I was able to trick Java by adding the following to my system deployment.properties file:
deployment.javaws.jre.0.product=1.6.0_20
deployment.javaws.jre.0.path=C\:\\Program Files (x86)\\Java\\jre6\\bin\\javaw.exe
deployment.javaws.jre.0.enabled=true
Because the RIA requests 1.6.0_20 it matches 1.6* from the deployment ruleset sooner than 1.6.0_26. However, if 1.6.0_20 is not available 1.6.0_26 should match according to the Deployment Rule Set documentation:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/jweb/security/deployment_rules.html
The version of the JRE that is used is determined by the following order of precedence:
1. The current version of the JRE is used if it is available and matches both the version attribute and the version requested by the RIA.
2. The latest available version of the JRE is used if it matches both the version attribute and the version requested by the RIA.
3. The current version of the JRE is used if it is available and matches the version attribute.
4. The latest available version of the JRE is used if it matches the version attribute.
If no version is available that meets the criteria, then the RIA is blocked, and a message is shown to the user. To provide a custom message, include the message element.
As a result:
If Java 1.6.0_20 is listed in the version requested by the RIA and 1.6.0_20 is listed in the deployment.properties file, #1 matches.
If Java 1.6.0_20 is listed in the version requested by the RIA, but 1.6.0_20 is NOT listed in the deployment.properties file the #1 SHOULD match, but doesn’t. It used to match up-to and including JRE 1.7 Update 51 however the ruleset appears to no longer match in subsequent versions.
#2 should never match with our current Deployment Ruleset. It would match if we specified 1.7* as a version in the Ruleset.xml.
#3 used to be broken as well after JRE 1.7 Update 51 however this bug has been marked as fixed. See: http://bugs.java.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8032781
I have reproduced this issue with Java 1.7 Update 71, Java 1.7 Update 72, and Java 1.8 Update 25 when one of these versions are installed with Java 1.6 Update 26.

I can't seem to edit this post anymore, for some odd reason.
So here goes;
I found this post in NVIDIA's knowledge base;
When installing an after-market graphics card into a certified Windows 8 PC with UEFI enabled, the s...
The interesting parts in this post are as follows;
When an after-market graphics card is installed into a motherboard with UEFI enabled in the system BIOS, or if the system is a certified Windows 8 PC with Secure Boot enabled, the system may not boot.
UEFI is a new system BIOS feature that is provided on most new motherboards. A UEFI system BIOS is required in order for the Windows 8 Secure Boot feature to work. Secure boot is enabled by default on certified Windows 8 PCs.
In order to get the PC to boot with a graphics card that does not contain UEFI firmware, the end-user must first disable the secure boot feature in the system's SBIOS before installing the graphics card.
Note: Some system SBIOS's incorporate a feature called compatibility boot. These systems will detect a non-UEFI-enabled firmware VBIOS and allow the user to disable secure boot and then proceed with a compatibility boot. If the system contains a system SBIOS the supports compatibility boot, the user will need to disable secure boot when asked during boot process
This leads me to believe that the BIOS update that wrecked my setup was 9SKT58A/9SJT58A, which only contains one change;
"Adds support for updating BIOS from a WIN7 BIOS to a WIN8 BIOS".
I've just ordered a cheap UEFI-compatible GT640 from Gainward, so I hope I'll be able to try that out this weekend.

I have messages in mail that are color-coded as if by a rule, but I have no rules set. How can I correct this?

The only rule that I ever had in Mail was the default one that color coded messages from Apple blue. I notice that some messages are color-coded brown and I have no rules set at al (hence no rule to turn off.) Some of the messages are related to viewing online magazine, but not all. How can I stop this?

Hi. Thanks for your message.
Well, I understand what you are trying to say but I thought it was easier to categorize in Apple Mail.
On Entourage I just click twice on a sender address, record it on Address book and give it a colour that I previously defined as "Work", "Personal", "Customers", "Suppliers", "Friends" or whatever.
As Apple Mail don't have Address Book as part of it but an outside feature it's very annoying. Of course I am used to use a software and I don't expect now Apple Mail do everything as Entourage but... as someone said it seems Apple Mail stopped in time. The recent version seems the first one ever issued. I hate the way Mail.app handles attachments by placing big chunky previews right in my email. I prefer them to be named attachments listed somewhere else, out of the content of my email. I don't if I can change this via terminal commands? Can you tell me if that is possible?
I don't understand why Apple Mail have lots of plugins instead of a great improvment from the backstage.
I use Apple computers since ever and I love this machines but sometimes I don't understand this lake of improvments.
Take a look at this link:
http://scottworldblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/microsoft-entourage-vs-apple-mail /
Of course I don't agree 100% with him but some things are true...

Form Render Exception - No Messages Available

This exception message is not very descriptive.
I am attempting to render a PDF using an XDP and an XML file. I am using the Adobe Installation Verification tool installed on the server which allows you to merge data and xdp. This was working yesterday and all of a sudden it stopped working without any changes to the server?
Anyone who has seen this before or recognizes this issue any help, ideas are appreciated.
com.adobe.formServer.interfaces.RenderFormException: com.adobe.formServer.interfaces.FormServerException: XMLFormFactory, PAexecute failure: "(com.adobe.document.xmlform.ReturnStatus@23f17bdf) No messages available"
at com.adobe.formServer.client.EJBClient.renderForm(EJBClient.java:339)

Has anyone come to a conclusion as to why this is happening? It seems as it is xml/xdp specific?
Any thoughts?
Thanks in advance.

Error while uploading standard text files for the Global rule set

Hi all,
As part of Post Installation Activities we have uploaded standard text files for business process, functions, risks and rule set obtained with the installable Software.
While uploading the text files we have uploaded the Basis Functions Authorizations first and then R/3 text files.
When we checked no actions are appearing in the rule architect under respective functions except for the BASIS Module.
Is this because we have uploaded the Basis functions before the R/3 text files?If yes, how to replace the Basis with the R/3 ones.
We tried to replace the Basis function authorizations by re-uploading the R/3 text files again but we got the below error message u201CORA-00001:unique constraint (SAPSR3DB.SYS_C004479) violatedu201D
Can somebody please help in this regard how to get the standard rule set in our system?
Thanks and Best Regards,
Srihari.K

Hi Sri,
you should upload first the static text files and the authorization objects first and then the GRC standard rule set files following the instructions of the SAP Configuration Guide available in Service Market Place under http://service.sap.com/instguides .
The GRC standard rule set contains files named Basis_functions_action.txt and R3_function_action.txt. The first one contains ONLY function definitions in terms of transcation codes for basis only, whereas the second one contains functions definition for basis AND ERP modules. The same holds for the *_function_permission.txt files. There are also function definition files for other SAP solutions such as APO, CRM, HR etc.
You can open a customer message and request a deletion script for the rule sets files you have uploaded already. After their application of this script all rule set data will be deleted from your database. If you have uploaded static text and authorization files correctly, you can then upload the GRC standard rule set files as needed again.
best regards,
Frank

Do you trust the SAP standard rule set ?

Hello all,
I have the impression that, too often, the SAP standard ruleset has been taken for granted : upload, generate and use. Here is a post as to why not to do so. Hopefuly, this will generate a interesting discussion.
As I have previously stated in other threads, you should be very careful accepting the SAP standard rule set without reviewing it first. Before accepting it, you should ensure that your specific SAP environment has been reflected in the functions. The 2 following questions deal with this topic :
1. what is your SAP release ? ---> 46C is different than ECC 6.0 in terms of permissions to be included in the function permission tab. With every SAP release, new authorization objects are linked to SAP standard tcodes. Subsequently some AUTHORITY-CHECK statements have been adapted in the ABAP behind the transaction code. So, other authorizations need to provided from an implementation point of view (PFCG). And thus, from an audit perspective (GRC-CC), other settings are due when filtering users' access rights in search for who can do what in SAP.
2. what are your customizing settings and master data settings ? --> depending on these answers you will have to (de)activate certain permissions in your functions. Eg. are authorization groups for posting periods, business areas, material types, ... being used ? If this is not required in the SAP system and if activated in SAP GRC function, then you filter down your results too hard, thereby leaving certain users out of the audit report while in reality they can actually execute the corresponding SAP functionality --> risk for false negatives !
Do not forget that the SAP standard ruleset is only an import of SU24 settings of - probably - a Walldorf system. That's the reason SAP states that the delivered rule set is a starting point.
So, the best practice is :
a. collect SAP specific settings per connector in a separate 'questionnaire' document, preferably structured in a database
b. reflect these answers per function per connector per action per permission by correctly (de)activating the corresponding permissions for all affected functions
You can imagine that this is a time-consuming process due to the amount of work and the slow interaction with the Java web-based GRC GUI. Therefore, it is a quite cumbersome and at times error-prone activity ...... That is, in case you would decide to implement your questionnaire answers manually. There are of course software providers on the market that can develop and maintain your functions in an off-line application and generate your rule set so that you can upload it directly in SAP GRC. In this example such software providers are particularly interesting, because your questionnaire answers are structurally stored and reflected in the functions. Any change now or in the future can be mass-reflected in all (hundreds / thousands of) corresponding permissions in the functions. Time-saving and consistent !
Is this questionnaire really necessary ? Can't I just activate all permissions in every function ? Certainly not, because that would - and here is the main problem - filter too much users out of your audit results because the filter is too stringent. This practice would lead too false negatives, something that auditors do not like.
Can't I just update all my functions based on my particular SU24 settings ? (by the way, if you don't know what SU24 settings are, than ask your role administrator. He/she should know. ) Yes, if you think they are on target, yes you can by deleting all VIRSA_CC_FUNCPRM entries from the Rules.txt export of the SAP standard rule set, re-upload, go for every function into change mode so that the new permissions are imported based on your SU24 settings. Also, very cumbersome and with the absolute condition that you SU24 are maintained excellent.
Why is that so important ? Imagine F_BKPF_GSB the auth object to check on auth groups on business areas within accounting documents. Most role administrator will leave this object on Check/Maintain in the SU24 settings. This means that the object will be imported in the role when - for example - FB01 has been added in the menu. But the role administrator inactivates the object in the role. Still no problem, because user doesn't need it, since auth groups on business areas are not being used. However, having this SU24 will result in an activated F_BKPF_GSB permission in your GRC function. So, SAP GRC will filter down on those users who have F_BKPF_GSB, which will lead to false negatives.
Haven't you noticed that SAP has deactivated quite a lot of permissions, including F_BKPF_GSB ? Now, you see why. But they go too far at times and even incorrect. Example : go ahead and look deeper into function AP02. There, you will see for FB01 that two permissions have been activated. F_BKPF_BEK and F_BKPF_KOA. The very basic authorizations needed to be able to post FI document are F_BKPF_BUK and F_BKPF_KOA. That's F_BKPF_BUK .... not F_BKPF_BEK. They have made a mistake here. F_BKPF_BEK is an optional auth object (as with F_BKPF_GSB) to check on vendor account auth groups.
Again, the message is : be very critical when looking at the SAP standard rule set. So, test thoroughly. And if your not sure, leave the job to a specialized firm.
Success !
Sam

Sam and everyone,
Sam brings up some good points on the delivered ruleset. Please keep in mind; however, that SAP has always stated that the delivered ruleset is a starting point. This is brought up in sap note 986996     Best Practice for SAP CC Rules and Risks. I completely agree with him that no company should just use the supplied rules without doing a full evaluation of their risk and control environment.
I'll try to address each area that Sam brings up:
1. Regarding the issue with differences of auth objects between versions, the SAP delivered rulset is not meant to be version specific. We therefore provide rules with the lowest common denominator when it comes to auth object settings.
The rules were created on a 4.6c system, with the exception of transactions that only exist in higher versions.
The underlying assumption is that we want to ensure the rules do not have any false negatives. This means that we purposely activate the fewest auth objects required in order to execute the transaction.
If new or different auth object settings come into play in the higher releases and you feel this results in false positives (conflicts that show that don't really exist), then you can adjust the rules to add these auth objects to the rules.
Again, our assumption is that the delivered ruleset should err on the side of showing too many conflicts which can be further filtered by the customer, versus excluding users that should be reported.
2. For the customizing settings, as per above, we strive to deliver rules that are base level rules that are applicable for everyone. This is why we deliver only the core auth objects in our rules and not all. A example is ME21N.
If you look at SU24 in an ECC6 system, ME21N has 4 auth objects set as check/maintain. However, in the rules we only enable one of the object, M_BEST_BSA. This is to prevent false negatives.
3. Sam is absolutely right that the delivered auth object settings for FB01 have a mistake. The correct auth object should be F_BKPF_BUK and not F_BKPF_BEK. This was a manual error on my part. I've added this to a listing to correct in future versions of the rules.
4. Since late 2006, 4 updates have been made to the rules to correct known issues as well as expand the ruleset as needed. See the sap notes below as well as posting Compliance Calibrator - Q2 2008 Rule Update from July 22.
1083611 Compliance Calibrator Rule Update Q3 2007
1061380 Compliance Calibrator Rule Update Q2 2006
1035070 Compliance Calibrator Rule Update Q1 2007
1173980 Risk Analysis and Remediation Rule Update Q2 2008
5. SAP is constantly working to improve our rulesets as we know there are areas where the rules can be improved. See my earlier post called Request for participants for an Access Control Rule mini-council from January 28, 2008. A rule mini-council is in place and I welcome anyone who is interested in joining to contact me at the information provided in that post.
6. Finally, the document on the BPX location below has a good overview of how companies should review the rules and customize them to their control and risk environment:
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/bpx-grc
Under Key Topics - Access Control; choose document below:
    o GRC Access Control - Access Risk Management Guide   (PDF 268 KB)
The access risk management guide helps you set up and implement risk
identification and remediation with GRC Access Control.

Deployment Rule Set broken with Java 7u55

Hello!
I'm using Deployment Rule Set in my company environment, its signed by code signing certificate that is given out by internal CA. After I upgraded to Java 7u55, the Deployment Rule Set does not recognize older statically installed Java version.
Versions I have:
7u45 - install directory: C:\Program Files\Java\jre1.7.0_45
7u51 - install directory: C:\Program Files\Java\jre1.7.0_51
7u55 - install directory: C:\Program Files\Java\jre1.7.0_55 or C:\Program Files\Java\jre7\ - neither does not work
When I go to site described in Ruleset and that has to use Java 7u45, then I receive an message "Deployment Rule Set required Java version 1.7.0_45 not available. In the same way it doesn't recognize 1.7.0.51 or even Java version 6.
When I uninstall Java 7u55, everthing works fine again.
My ruleset looks like this:
<ruleset version="1.0+">
     <rule>
          <id location="first.site.com" />
          <action permission="run" version="1.7.0_45" />
     </rule>
     <rule>
          <id location="second.site.com" />
          <action permission="run" version="1.7.0_51" />
     </rule>
     <rule
          <id />
          <action permission="default" />
     </rule>
</ruleset>
Anyone knows what's wrong or is it a bug?

costlow - I disagree. If I'm using IE, then I only need the internal certficate used to sign the jar to be also insalled on the machine in question in the windows CA Certs store. If the cert was the issue, why does it work with 7u51. If it was a bad cert, it should fail with every version. Plus, I think the pop up has a different error message if it has a cert issue.
I'm having the exact same issue as the OP described and it all started with 7u55. Here's what I've found:
- With 7u55 or 7u60 installed, the error will come up rergardless of what prior version is being requested.
- If 7u51 is the latest installed, it works
- If 8u05 is installed with 7u55 and/or 7u60, it works
- If I install the 7u60 EA b15, it works
Something in the final release is being added that blocks this functionality, but for some odd reason only in the 7 family starting with 7u55.
Any insight you could give would be very helpful. In the meantime, I am deploying 8u05 to cover this up, but it does pose issues for some apps that don't work with the new 8 family plugin.

Doubt in Execute Rule Set Action

Hi,
I have seen the following documentation in help doc regarding Execute Ruleset action
'The Execute Ruleset and Execute Flow Ruleset rule script actions result in evaluating and executing another ruleset u2013 either a rete ruleset or a flow ruleset. This action is similar to invoking a ruleset, except that the current value of objects, including variable definitions, are available to the ruleset being invoked (instead of their initial values). If the invoked ruleset changes the value of any of the objects, these are reflected in the initial Flow Ruleset'
I have a rule flow set invoking another rule set in its action script. I need to pass a variable defined in rule flow set to invoked rule set. I did this with following action
Execute Ruleset RuleSet1 On var1.
My doubt is how do i access this in invoked rule set? I didnt see this in invoked rule set.
Regards,
Dhana

Hi Dhana,
'The Execute Ruleset and Execute Flow Ruleset rule script actions result in evaluating and executing another ruleset u2013 either a rete ruleset or a flow ruleset. This action is similar to invoking a ruleset, except that the current value of objects, including variable definitions, are available to the ruleset being invoked (instead of their initial values). If the invoked ruleset changes the value of any of the objects, these are reflected in the initial Flow Ruleset'
What we mean by the stmt above is - In case the action "Execute Ruleset" or "Execute Flow Ruleset" is used, all those global definitions which are modified at the ruleset level will retain their changed value when the other ruleset is evaluated.
This needn't be specifically mentioned using the "ON" option.
This option is provided for a user to pass the current value of objects alone. "except that the current value of objects... are available to the ruleset being invoked"
Your other question related to passing the variable definition created at the flow ruleset level, to be passed to the other ruleset - such a mapping is not yet possible. You will have to define this as a common(global) definition.
Hope this clarifies your doubt.
Best Regards,
Arti

FBL5N - in Rule set - It is a Display customer line items

Dear All,
We observed that FBL5N - Display customer line items in Standard SoD rule set under function AR07 addressing a risk of S022.
Unless there are t-codes of FD03 or FB02 this t-code does not allow to change the payment terms of the customer.
We are having a challenge from the client that FBL5N is a display t-code and why it is there in rule set.
Has anybody came across this scenario? If yes, what is the underlying risk for this FBL5N independently.
Is there any SAP Note for this t-code like ME23N from SAP.
Thanks and Best Regards,
Srihari.K

Hi Christian,
We checked the authorization objects as well enabled in GRC rule set as below:
F_BKPF_BUK - Docume t Authorization document for company codes - 01 or 02 - Enable.
Inspite of this access, FBL5N cannot be used to change the document for payment terms and assignments without FB02 t-code
assignment in the role.
Independently FBL5N cannot be used for any change or create activity except Display customer line items.
Please advise
Thanks and Best Regards,
Srihari.K

GRC53 Rule Set Migrated into GRC10

Gurus, has anyone encountered the following situation. We migrated our 53 rule set into GRC 10 using the Migration Tool. On the surface all of the rule objects seem to move across as they should. We then began to run our risk reports. We noticed that for the same user, in the same backend ECC system, we get varying results from our 53 Rule Set which is in our GRC10 system vs the 5.3 Rule Set executed from our old 5.3 system. We see more violations returned from our old 5.3 system; entire risks are not reported from the GRC10 system.
Consequently, I began reviewing the functions (actions/permissions). I picked a specific risk that was returned by the 5.3 system and reviewed it, line by line - comparing the 53 Rule Set in GRC10 against the 53 Rule Set in the 5.3 system. Everything lined up, with the exception of the activity values. In the 53 Rule Set that was migrated into GRC10 the activity values are single digits (1,2,5, etc) where as in the 5.3 System the activates are two digits (01, 02, 05, etc), Since the values are mainatined in SAP as double digits, could this be causing this? I would hope this is not the culprit, but I am unsure where else to turn.
I will say for those risks that were returned in the results, the activities in those functions were single digits as well.

Hi Penn,
Can you check if your default SoD risk level is "Critical" and hence all the conflicts are not being thrown in 10.0
There is an SAP Note 1632864 where you need to maintain parameter 1024 and se tthe default risk level to High. Since there is no option of All in 10.0 similar to 5.3
Thanks and Best Regards,
Srihari.K

RFC to JDBC "No messages available for selection"

Hi Guys
I am testing my RFC to JDBC scenario, and on sxmb_moni I get error: "No messages available for selection"
on SE37 I have ran my RFC with a data.
On SM59 I created and test my RFC destination its working fine, on the SM58 no errors, I am using
BAPI_BANK_GETLIST as my sender and my DataBase table (SQLServer) is my receiver
On my MM I have set access to constant INSERT
What am I not doing right?
Thanks
Yonela

Hi Guys
As Bruno have specified I decided to reverce my scenario now it JDBC to RFC Synch but now the problem I am facing with is that I dont get a response back. I want it to return one field from my table.
I am using the BAPI_BANK_GETLIST and BAPI_BANK_GETLIST.Response, SQL Server as my database server.
On my http://xxxxx:50000/mdt/channelmonitorservlet the JDBC sender is working fine but when testing the RFC Receiver I get the below error and went through lots of blogs still no luck.
Message processing failed. Cause: com.sap.aii.af.ra.ms.api.RecoverableException: error while processing message to remote system:com.sap.aii.af.rfc.core.client.RfcClientException: functiontemplate from repository was <null>: com.sap.aii.af.rfc.afcommunication.RfcAFWException: error while processing message to remote system:com.sap.aii.af.rfc.core.client.RfcClientException: functiontemplate from repository was <null>
On my sxmb_moni my fllag is black and white which is what I wanted to see.
Your suggestions will be helpful,
Thanks
Yonela

Unhandled Exception "Could not find any available Domain Controller"

Hi,
I keep on having exchange 2010 loosing contact to domain controllers.
"Unhandled Exception "Could not find any available Domain Controller.". EventID 1. Once I restart the sever, this error disappear and reappear again after a few days.
When I run AD setting, the result shows as below. Update version is currently as at 14.02.0342.003. And boths DCs have 100% uptime.
PS C:\> Get-ADServerSettings | fl
RunspaceId
: 9392eb25-bcdc-462e-816b-2d5626c572a5
DefaultGlobalCatalog
: DC2.com.au
PreferredDomainControllerForDomain
DefaultConfigurationDomainController
: dc1.com.au
DefaultPreferredDomainControllers
: {DC2.com.au}
UserPreferredGlobalCatalog
UserPreferredConfigurationDomainController :
UserPreferredDomainControllers
RecipientViewRoot
ViewEntireForest
: True
WriteOriginatingChangeTimestamp
: False
WriteShadowProperties
: False
Identity
IsValid
: True
Could you please help as this exchange server has our management team and their outlook keep on going offline.
Thanking you in advance.
Cheers,
Pwint

I have another issue. I was trouble shooting exchange bin folder for permission and as a result of it Exchange transport service stopped and couldn't restart. I quickly changed to local service account and able to restart. Fixed the transport roles folder
permission but don't know the password of network service account so I can't change it back. I can send and receive emails internally and externally but I am worried that by running with local account maybe not recommended? Is it safe to reset network service
password? Thanks. I am freaking out... Regards, Pwint

GRC 10: Default Rule sets

Hi All.
i am wondering whether we have default rule set for GRC10 as we found with GRC 5.3. Where do I find them in GRC 10 software download?
rEgards,
Faisal

In GRC10 default rule set are available by BCset :
GRAC_RA_RULESET_COMMON
GRAC_RA_RULESET_JDE
GRAC_RA_RULESET_ORACLE
GRAC_RA_RULESET_PSOFT
GRAC_RA_RULESET_SAP_APO
GRAC_RA_RULESET_SAP_BASIS
GRAC_RA_RULESET_SAP_CRM
GRAC_RA_RULESET_SAP_ECCS
GRAC_RA_RULESET_SAP_HR
GRAC_RA_RULESET_SAP_NHR
GRAC_RA_RULESET_SAP_R3
GRAC_RA_RULESET_SAP_SRM

Rule Set: Exception!!. No relavent language message available in database

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for