Transports: Best practice in reversing old transports not moved to PRD

Hello Guru's,
I have a lot of old transports moved from DEV to QAS that don't work or are irrelevant that need to be reversed. These transports were made by a consultant no longer with the company and there is no documentation of what was changed.
What is the best method in reversing these changes?
I appreciate your help!

Next time, don't ask for the best practice. You would likely get more response if you simply ask "What would you do..?"
Rob

Similar Messages

Open transport request in Development server which is not moved to Producti

HI All,
I am doing upgrade from ECC5.0 to ECC6. EHP4.
We have some open Transport request in development server which are not moved to PRD.
Now client wants to stabilize their both the systems, want to compare each trasport in PRD.
My question is, if they dont want that request to move to PRD, what we have to do?
We have to delete the tranport and select the active version of tranport which is there in PRD or how.
Please suggest me how to proceed for this scenario. we have lot of transports. ( Tables,programs,classes,methods,etc.,)
Regards,
sarath

Hello Sarath,
1st question: did you already finish your upgrade? If not, at which phase is it at?
2nd: did you upgrade your DEV system already to the same level as PRD?
3rd: were these transports generated in an old version (like ECC 5.0)? If yes, and now you have an ECC 6.0 system, you must not import them on this system, as they have different versions. If you do it, you'll make your system inconsistent.
Please clarify on these points so we can help you.
Best regards,
Tomas Black

Transport Best Practices - Cumulative Transports

Hi All,
    I am looking for a some sort of authoritative guide from SAP on ECC Transport Best Practices, especially around merging/combining/accumulating multiple transports into fewer ones. We are a very large project, but we haven't figured out the CVSs like ChaRm so we still deal with individual transports.
The reason I am asking this is that we some development leads on our project that insist that ALL transports that leave Development system must be imported into Production. They claim this the SAP best practice. An SAP consulting review of our system also left a vague note that "We are orphaning transports". This could mean that 1. either we are not importing all the stuff that leaves Dev system 2. or we are not keeping track of our code changes across all environments. Proponents of "All transports must get to PRD" are interpreting this as "1".
I have my team cumulate transport for subsequent changes into newer transport and only take the newest Transport to Production. The continuous rolling of old Transport into new one using SE01 "Include Objects" options ensures that all changes part of current development are in a single TR. Fewer transports mean fewer housekeeping across all systems, and less chances of something going out of sequence or missed out. This is for Workbench Transports only. I understand Config transports could get a little tricky with rolling in.
If you can't point me to a link, what is your take on "Send everything to Prod" vs. "Combine changes into fewer Transports"? I can't think of any software packaging methodology that suggests putting everything, including some junk/crap, into production build. I have looked at SAP enhancement packs, SPS, and Notes. I haven't found any evidence of SAP including older buggy code in what it releases to its customers.
Thank you all!

Jānis, Christian,
    I think we are all on the same page. Let me clarify my specific scenario a little bit more.
We are about 15 ABAP developers team, for production support. We don't do huge changes. Our code updates are mostly limited to a handful of objects (average 2 - 5). We often have multiple iterations to same objects. For large scale development objects, this approach may not work very well. Those should really utilize SolMan or other CVS tools.
Here is How I have my team putting together final transport.
step 1. Change is done to object X. Transport #1 created and released after standard checks.
step 2. More change is needed for object X. Transport #2 Started. Transport #1 is brought in using SE01 include objects at the main task. Changed objects are in lower tasks. This way, I can tell what was brought over, and what really changed this time. Releases of the Transport #2 inspects all objects and insures all objects from #1 are included in #2, and that there are no other changes between #1 and #2 to any of the objects. This is very easy check mostly from Version History.
Step 3. More changes needed to object X and Y. Transport #3 started. Transport #2 brought in at main task. Same check from Step 2 is done to ensure no other changes exist.
step 4....6. Step 6 ended at Transport #6. All changes verified in QA system.
Only the Transport #6 needs to be sent to Production since previous Transports 1 to 5 were rolled into #6.
Jānis, the deletions will be covered automatically just like standard SAP. No special manual steps needed.
Christian,
   The transport of copies works in similar way. Only thing different is that the Main/cumulative transport is released at very last, possibly after QA tests have been confirmed.
I had thought about doing Copies vs. cumulative. I preferred to go with having Transport in QA already at the time of approval. I would have hard time explaining to our client why a Transport was released out of Dev After all tests were done and signed off.
However, the Copies have advantage that intermediate versions or parallel changes of same objects are easily recognized upfront vs. us having to check each transport before release.
Jānis, the "copies of Transport" also creates extra versions in version history just like manually adding objects in a transport.
My quick analysis between copies and cumulative only came with one different that 'copies' have a different flag/attribute in Table E070. I am sure the flag means something to SAP, but for versioning history, it makes no differences.
Regardless of if I cumulate or not, based on your experiences, have you come across notion that everything that leaves Dev must get to PRD as SAP Best Practice? What would your reply be if someone insists that is the only way to move code to production?

Look For Transport Best Practices

Hi,
I am looking for transport best practices, so please answer the following questions on how your place of business handles :
1. If an object is modified in development and you decide that you you do not wish to move the modifications forward - Do you;
    a. delete the transport and release the locks
    b. create a corrective transport and move the transport through production
    c. release the transport and never import it into the next system
    d. something different : (Please explain)
2. If a transport is imported into QA and then you decide never to move it to production, do you:
    a. delete the transport and release the locks
    b. create a corrective transport and move the transport through production
    c. release the transport and never import it into the next system
    d. something different : (Please explain)
Thanks Rob
[email protected]

I was always taught never to delete a transport. The changes should be reversed in the same transport and moved forward or released and the corrective transport moved forward in the same import queue.
If the transport goes to QAS then it needs to move to production. A corrective transport should be imported into production in the same queue.
I am sure you can get 20 different answers on this, but this is my policy.

Portal System Transport (Best Practice)

Hello,
We have DEV, QA and PRD landscape. We have created systems that connect to backend ECC systems. Since the DEV and QA ECC system has one application server, we have created a portal system of type singe application server in the DEV Portal that points to DEV ECC system. Subsequently we have transported this portal system to QA portal and make it point to QA ECC.
Now the Prd ECC systems is of type load balancing with multiple servers. The portal system that connects to Prd ECC system should also be of type Load Balancing. Now we cannot transport the QA portal system that connects to QA ECC system to prd since its of type Single Application Server.
What will be the best strategy to create the portal system in prd portal that points to PRD ECC.
1. Create the portal system freshly in Prd system of type Load Ballancing. Does it adhere to the best practise approach that suggest Not to Create anyting in prd system directly.
OR
2, Is there any other way that should I follow to make sure that Best Practices for Portal Dvelepment is followed.
Regards
Deb

I don't find it useful to transport system objects so I make them manually.

Best practices to delete old content

What is the best way to delete old content? The amount of data (documents and recordings) is growing steadily and our server is running out of disc space. According to our policy documents and recordings older than 6 months can be removed.
What is the best way to do this (via API) and what else do we have to consider? Any recommendations?
Thanks & best regards,

Remove the application from your applications folder.
Then navigate to the ~/Library/Application Support folder and delete everything in there associated with the specific program.
Also navigate to the /Library/Application Support folder and delete the files specific to the program.
~/Library/Preferences to delete the preferences you have for that specific application for when/if you reinstall it.
That's basically the most thorough way to remove something from your mac.

Best Practice: files that should never be moved or deleted

Hi there.
I've just gone through my computer for the first time in a couple of years and done a massive cleanup, but without really knowing the consequences I guess you could say and now things are acting a little strange.
+(I feel silly even writing this, knowing that all the IT heads out there are sighing a unanimous 'what an idiot'.)+
Can anyone please provide a sort of 'best practice' guide for the files/file types that should absolutely be on the harddrive, or in the apps folder, utilities folder, etc? and if there are any that should 'never' be deleted?
.. or even some program that sort of saves you from yourself by keeping those files safe from being a.) moved and b.) deleted
Would be a huge help!
Thanks in advance ~
Message was edited by: BluesySue
Message was edited by: BluesySue

Apple has already hidden about half of the folders on a typical OS X install. The ones that make up the Unix core of the OS. So unless you know how to find those, you'll never have to worry about them.
Aside from that, you just want to keep away from the System folder and any of the Library folders. Nothing else should be too crucial to the OS running.
Of course if you wanted to elaborate on "a little strange" we might be able to be a bit more helpful.

Workflow Manager disaster recovery old instances not moving forward

Dear ALL,
I am facing an issue in workflow manager 1.0 disaster recovery.
I followed all the steps to recover workflow manager 1.0 mentioned in MSDN, new instances which I have created after restoration working fine, but the old workflow instances when I complete any of the task does not moving forward even the workflow is
not getting suspended there is no error please see the screen shot.
Regards,
Faraz Javaid

Hi I did not republish the workflow and the behavior was same for old workflow instances as mentioned in my question.
Then I republished the workflow thinking that it might solve the problem but the result remain the same. I have check the Logs but unfortunately I did not find any noticeable error.
Faraz Javaid

Best practice for JavaFX lifecycle when not used as a normal application

Suppose there was a Java app that runs in a terminal with its own command line interface. Certain commands typed in would show a Window that contains a Stage/Scene. In order to accomplish this, I would call Application.launch( App.class, null );. The problem is this Window may be closed by the User and then a future command may bring up another Window. As we know Application.launch may only be called one. Also the launch method blocks the calling thread.
Naively I would create an adapter that spawns a thread on the initial call to call Application.launch for the first window and bypass this for future windows.
Though if someone has an understanding of the best way to go about spawning arbitrary Scenes from an app where the app lifecycle is at a larger scale than javafx.application.Application that would be most appreciated.

In this situation, there isn't really a "primary" stage but an initial one. I can hook up a thread to call Application.launch and instrument it so the Stage it creates (and calls start on) is handled and additional stages will bypass Application.launch and create new Stages.
But this feels like a kludge to me.
I wonder if there is a different way to get the Toolkit operating in the background. This would be similar, I suppose, to how calling setScene on JFXPanel works.
Ideas anyone?

Workflow not completed, is this best practice for PR?

Hi SAP Workflow experts,
I am new in workflow and now responsible to support existing PR release workflow.
The workflow is quite simple and straightforward but the issue here is the workflow seems like will never be completed.
If the user released the PR, the next activity is Requisition released that using task TS20000162.
This will send work item to user (pr creator) sap inbox which when they double click it will complete the workflow.
The thing here is, in our organization, user does not access SAP inbox hence there are thousands of work item that has not been completed. (our procurement system started since 2009).
Our PR creator will receive notification of the PR approval to theirs outlook mail handled by a program that is scheduled every 5 minutes.
Since the documentation is not clear enough, i can't digest why the implementer used this approach.
May I know whether this is the best practice for PR workflow or not?
Now my idea is to modify the send email program to complete the workitem after the email being sent to user outlook mail.
Not sure whether it is common or not though in workflow world.
Any help is deeply appreciated.
Thank you.

Hello,
"This will send work item to user (pr creator) sap inbox which when they double click it will complete the workflow."
It sounds liek they are sending a workitem where an email would be enough. By completing the workitem they are simply acknowledging that they have received notification of the completion of the PR.
"Our PR creator will receive notification of the PR approval to theirs outlook mail handled by a program that is scheduled every 5 minutes."
I hope (and assume) that they only receive the email once.
I would change the workflow to send an email (SendMail step) to the initiator instead of the workitem. That is normally what happens. Either that or there is no email at all - some businesses only send an email if something goes wrong. Of course, the business has to agree to this change.
Having that final workitem adds nothing to the process. Replace it with an email.
regards
Rick Bakker
hanabi technology

Best Practice Documents

Hi,
We are a SAP customer currently upgradding to SAP Retail ECC6.0 Ehp 4.
I am looking for SAP best practices for Logistics Execution - Transportation Management.
Mainly looking at functionalities like Shipment creation, Routes, Shipment costing etc.
I tried to search on service.sap.com, but could not find it.
Can you help me by providing a direct link.
Thanks
Varun

Hi Niten,
See if this helps:
http://help.sap.com/bp_biv170/html/BW/I13_EN_DE.htm
Here is the link for all the best practice documents:
http://help.sap.com/bp_biv170/index.htm
Hope this helps...

List of activities for setting up ERP 6.0 with Best Practices

Based on my understand if i were to plan for setting up an ERP 6.0 Landscape with Best Practices (Full Scope) i would consider the execution of following activities:
Prepare EHP4 Landscape
Install ERP 6.0 on DEV
Upgrade DEV to EHP4 SP06
Install SAP Best Practices v1.604
Activate Full Scope of Best Practices on DEV
Prepare QA (System Copy - DEV with BP Activated)
Prepare PRD (System Copy - DEV with BP Activated)
Register Landscape in Solution Manager
Customization on EHP4
Customize Best Practices Scenarios on DEV
Transport Changes to QA
Test Changes on QA
Transport Changes to PRD
Upgrade to EHP5
Upgrade DEV, QA and PRD to EHP5
Install HCM Localization on DEV, QA and PRD
Customization on EHP5
Customize HCM Best Practices Scenarios on DEV
Transport Changes to QA
Test Changes on QA
Transport Changes to PRD
Please advise if there is anything missing or incorrect.
Thanks.

Hi,
I'm on a project with similar requirements. I follow this order in steps that you describe:
Install ERP 6.0 on DEV
Upgrade DEV to EHP4 SP06
Install SAP Best Practices v1.604 on DEV
Install QA
Install SAP Best Practices v1.604 on QUA
Install PRD
Install SAP Best Practices v1.604 on PRD
Activate Full Scope of Best Practices on DEV
Register Landscape in Solution Manager
Upgrade DEV, QA and PRD to EHP5
Install HCM Localization on DEV, QA and PRD
Customize Best Practices Scenarios on DEV
Transport Changes to QA
Test Changes on QA
Transport Changes to PRD
I hope that this will be useful for you
Best regards.
Alejandro Cepeda.

Best Practices Used in CMS

Hi,
Can anyone share the best practices used in CMS transport.
Basically, why I need this is that, we want to have a track of all the transport that are done in QA/Prod
Regards,
Sreenivas

Hi
U can try checking this document to know info about CMS
(How To Transport XI Content Using CMS)
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/f85ff411-0d01-0010-0096-ba14e5db6306
Also...
How to configuring the CMS for XI?
Business System Groups - CMS

Moving Mailserver from Xserve G4 to intel, Best practice?, Recommendations?

Hi!
I will receive a new Xserve intel soon and possibly want to move mail services from the currently used Xserve G4 (which is working fine) to the new Xserve intel.
The Xserve G4 is running a heavily modified mail setup thanks to pterobyte's excellent tutorials on fixing, updating, extending, dare I say "pimping" Mac OS X Server's mailserver setup.
What I want to achieve in the long run:
Have Mail services run on the Xserve intel and have the Xserve G4 work as a mailbackup. (They will be connected via permanent VPN, but be in different LANs on different ISPs). They shall be serving email for at least three distinct domains then. (All low volume. currently the G4 is serving a single domain using WGM aliases.) I want (and need) to switch to postfix aliases.
What I need to consider:
My client desperately wants/needs to update to Leopard server once it becomes available. Both Xserve definitely will be upgraded to Leopard Server then.
Time is not an issue at the moment as the G4 is working very well. I want to keep the work at a minimum in regard to the Leopard switch. I am fine with an interim solution, even if it is somewhat inelegant, as long as it runs fine. The additional domains are not urgent at the moment. It will be fine when they transfer to the intel Xserve once we run Leopard.
Questions:
Does it pay to do all the work moving from the G4 to the intel (I'd need to compile and configure all the SpamAssassin, ClamAV, Amavisd-New, etc. again...) move all the Mailboxes, Users, IMAP and SMTP. In regard that there will be a clean install once Leopard comes out. (I am definitely no fan of Updating a Mac OS X server. Experience has proven to me that this does not work reliably.)
Are there any recommendations or best practice hints from your experience when moving a server from PPC to intel?
Thanks in advance
MacLemon

By all means do a clean install. If time is not an issue, make sure Leopard has been on the market 2-3 months before you do so.
Here is what I would do:
1. Clean install of Intel Server
2. Update all components
3. Copy all needed configuration files from PPC to Intel Server
4. Backup PPC mail server with mailbfr
5. Restore mail backup with mailbfr to Intel Server
This is all that needs to be done.
If you want to keep the G4 as a backup server, just configure it as a secondary MX in case your primary is down. Trying to keep mailboxes redundant is only possible in a cluster and a massive pain to configure (Leopard should change that though).
HTH,
Alex

SAP JDK - Best Practice

Hello Experts,
We are in process of upgrading our JDK from 17 to 22. We are wondering about the best practice. We checked SAP note 718901 and 731269.
After checking this note, we are wondering about best practice. How JDK should be installed?
We are using Windows 2003 with Oracle 10.2.0.2. When you install JDK it goes by default to C:\j2sdk1.4.2_17-x64. If we upgrade to 22, it creates new folder c:\j2sdk1.4.2_22-x64 and we need to reconfigure JAVA path and JAVA_HOME all places i.e. SDM, Config Tool and Visual Admin.
We are wondering if we install JDK to C:\JDK and during upgrade if we provide that path, we shouldn't have to change JAVA_HOME in all places.
Is it possible?
We tried making changes as per note 718901 with option 1 but it doesn't change in all places in config tool for JAVA_HOME. As per note 731269 both the JDK should be available for startup to sync file system and database. We are kind of confused.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks,
Miral.

Hi Miral,
>
> We are wondering if we install JDK to C:\JDK and during upgrade if we provide that path, we shouldn't have to change JAVA_HOME in all places.
>
> Is it possible?
>
This is not possible.
> We tried making changes as per note 718901 with option 1 but it doesn't change in all places in config tool for JAVA_HOME. As per note 731269 both the JDK should be available for startup to sync file system and database. We are kind of confused.
>
First you have to change in instance profile and in environment variable. Then change in startup batch file of visual admin, config tool and SDM.
Thanks
Sunny

Transports: Best practice in reversing old transports not moved to PRD

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for