[TRAN] Add new object type TRAN #713

WDFYvonne · 2025-07-24T08:48:53Z

closed

WDFYvonne · 2025-07-24T09:58:19Z

Hi colleagues,
I do not see any abaplint errors for TRAN, there are new errors for old object SUSH. Do I need to correct these new errors for SUSH?

file-formats/tran/tran/README.md

WDFYvonne · 2025-07-28T08:03:31Z

Hi Colleagues,
could you please help me to resolve the issue with the generate JSON Schema?
Regards,
Yvonne

Markus1812

Hi Yvonne, thanks for contributing to our abap-file-formats repository. TRAN is a huge file format, so please understand if we need multiple iterations of reviews here. Below, I've added some first comments. Please have a look and let me know what you think :)

file-formats/tran/type/zif_aff_tran_v1.intf.abap

WDFYvonne · 2025-07-30T07:08:27Z

Hi Marcus, thank you very much for reviewing our AFF. All the field names and titles are based on our data model. I need to confirm this with Peter Dell, but he's on vacation until tomorrow.

GuilhermeSaraiva96 · 2025-07-30T08:48:26Z

Hi Yvonne, the AFF naming are separate from the data model names. In the aff persist class you can then map both. One of the main advantages of the AFF is providing a readable object, which does not happens if there are acronyms everywhere. Just to keep in mind ;)

file-formats/tran/type/zif_aff_tran_v1.intf.abap

Markus1812 · 2025-08-04T13:54:51Z

@WDFYvonne From my perspective, there are still some open points on your side. If you have made some changes, please upload the files again and let me know, when I can review again. If a review-comment is addressed from your point of view, please resolve the conversation.

WDFYvonne · 2025-08-12T14:25:30Z

@Markus1812 we have closed all open points and upload the corrected AFF again. Please check it again.

Markus1812 · 2025-08-12T15:07:03Z

Hi Yvonne, thanks for the update. I've asked someone from my team to co-review your AFF.

schneidermic0

Thank you for your contribution, @WDFYvonne.

Markus asked me to take a look at this pull request as well. Overall, the structure seems pretty solid. I've given some feedback on it, too.

However, I'm having some trouble with the names you've chosen for the AFF. I understand you've adapted them to fit your internal structure, but I want to emphasize that AFF is meant to be easily understood by users [1]. The names you choose should be as close as possible to what end users are familiar with. This applies not only to field titles but also to the field names themselves. These names appear in the source code and version management tools, like in git repositories or comparison editors. It's important to have user-friendly field names and titles for a better user experience.

An example is the difference between the field name platinMode and "SAP GUI for Java".

I recommend aligning these names with user terminology whenever possible. It might be helpful to finalize these field names during the UX review and then update them in the AFF afterward.

[1] https://github.com/SAP/abap-file-formats#background-and-scope

schneidermic0 · 2025-08-15T12:11:56Z

file-formats/tran/type/zif_aff_tran_v1.intf.abap

+      webgui_mode       TYPE ty_ua_webgui_mode,
+      "! <p class="shorttext">SAP GUI for Java</p>
+      "! The transaction supports the start from SAP GUI for Java.
+      platin_mode       TYPE ty_ua_platin_mode,


Why you are using different terms from the UI technology? Especially, I am struggling with "platinMode" as a field. Is this really known by end-users who creates transactions?
I din't find it in SAPterm. Do I miss anything?

Also in SE93, this is called like your titles, which I think are good.

BTW - Here, I would also prefer check boxes (as in SAP GUI) instead of having drop-downs (with only two values). I think @Markus1812 mentioned this earlier. ;) But we can wait for the UX review
If a third value would be needed in the future, you could increase the file format version.

I agree with the argument having fields extendible (especially on the DB/API level). However, on the end-user facing level booleans/check-boxes might be much more easy to use.

In the logical and physical data model the names of these fields are also WEBGUI_MODE, PLATIN_MODE and WIN32_MODE. Also here we want to avoid error by mapping

The technical names are technical names that are also used in out official APIs and CDS views. End users editing the source should never see them. Also when showing diffs, I would expect the field label to be displayed, like this in done in SVERS, Change Documents and DBTAB Logs.

Regarding the checkboxes, I would expect this to be handled via the UI configuration, like we do in the Dynpro case. But as AFF is also the basis for non-UI cases like abapGIT, having the same technical names everywhere is essential for us.

The intention of AFF is to have a source code representation that is shown to the end user in the JSON format. As of now, the AFF infrastructure doesn't provide a mapping between the technical fields in the ABAP type and the JSON representation*. Therefore, the names of the fields in the AFF's ABAP type become end-user relevant in the JSON. At least without extending the existing infrastructure.

See also your example file:
https://github.com/SAP/abap-file-formats/blob/786710fc7a97af43b794e1a263b753c28b912c72/file-formats/tran/examples/z_aff_example_tran.tran.json

*) A short addition: For enum values, we have already provided a mapping from ABAP names to names within the JSON that is used in rare cases (see annotation $enumValue; https://github.com/SAP/abap-file-formats/blob/main/docs/json.md#enum-values).

schneidermic0 · 2025-08-15T12:48:31Z

file-formats/tran/examples/z_aff_example_tran.tran.json

+  "authorizations": {
+    "authorizationDefaults": {
+      "inheritanceMode": "inactive",
+      "authObjects": [


Don't repeat yourself

What repetition do you mean?

Sorry, my explanation was too short. It's also just a minor here, but could simplify the usage for end users if they need to change the source code.

My question would be, can we avoid the "auth" in the sub structure within the array. To me more concrete: instead of "authObjectName" can we just use "name". Same for "fieldValues" and the elements below that.

Do you know what I mean, now?

Thank you for the explanation. But also here to avoid errors by mapping we want the same fields names as in our data model.

schneidermic0 · 2025-08-15T12:51:18Z

file-formats/tran/type/zif_aff_tran_v1.intf.abap

+  TYPES ty_class_program_name TYPE c LENGTH 40.
+  "! <p class="shorttext">Class</p>
+  "! Class name
+  TYPES ty_class_name         TYPE c LENGTH 30.


If you like, you could use following type for char 30 object names:

(z)if_aff_types_v1=>ty_object_name_30.

We could even introduce a type for 40 character object names (if needed) for ty_class_program_name.

ok, I can also use if_aff_types_v1=>ty_object_name_30. We use the type c length 40 also for report and program name. Maybe it would be better to provide a general type with length 40?

If you want to use it, we can provide it. I think object type with 40 characters might make sense to provide in general. Shall we go ahead with this?

yes, please

file-formats/tran/examples/z_aff_example_tran.tran.json

file-formats/tran/type/zif_aff_tran_v1.intf.abap

WDFYvonne added 9 commits January 5, 2023 16:13

React to abaplint

07c3c46

Merge branch 'SAP:main' into main

8c0cd56

Merge branch 'SAP:main' into main

eed0397

Merge branch 'SAP:main' into main

5e8a46f

Merge branch 'SAP:main' into main

2a6bfde

Add fildes for TRAN

630dd2f

React to abaplint

d663b3b

React of abaplint 2

fcb415b

React to abaplint

feea4b7

WDFYvonne added 5 commits July 24, 2025 15:29

React of abaplint 2

21a23c2

New types in AFF interface

2b468bd

Delete of SUSH

f374af9

Add example for TRAN

6a84f16

React to EditorConfig

65e5e7c

larshp reviewed Jul 25, 2025

View reviewed changes

file-formats/tran/tran/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

WDFYvonne added 3 commits July 25, 2025 15:26

React to JSON examples

d7b5eb9

React to validate JASON Examples

9604e30

React to error

e6162f1

WDFYvonne and others added 9 commits July 28, 2025 10:03

Merge branch 'main' into feature/tran

346cc57

Correct AFF

48237f3

React to Validate examples against schema

61a3cdf

React to Validate examples against schema

539934b

React to check markdown

8449a51

New type in AFF

9f652e7

New Type in AFF

020596d

New Type in AFF

2d6ec4e

Merge branch 'main' into feature/tran

0b2887f

Markus1812 reviewed Jul 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

GuilhermeSaraiva96 requested changes Jul 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

WDFYvonne added 3 commits August 6, 2025 12:45

React to CrossCheck1

62f188b

React to Validate examples against schema

c3330f0

Set right type for some fields

9ac8039

Merge branch 'main' into feature/tran

5ee72b8

schneidermic0 requested changes Aug 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

WDFYvonne added 2 commits August 22, 2025 12:02

Updated for example

786710f

React to Validate examples against schema

9afee69

[TRAN] Add new object type TRAN #713

Are you sure you want to change the base?

[TRAN] Add new object type TRAN #713

Uh oh!

Conversation

WDFYvonne commented Jul 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

WDFYvonne commented Jul 24, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

WDFYvonne commented Jul 28, 2025

Uh oh!

Markus1812 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

WDFYvonne commented Jul 30, 2025

Uh oh!

GuilhermeSaraiva96 commented Jul 30, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Markus1812 commented Aug 4, 2025

Uh oh!

WDFYvonne commented Aug 12, 2025

Uh oh!

Markus1812 commented Aug 12, 2025

Uh oh!

schneidermic0 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

WDFYvonne commented Jul 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading