[INTS] Add new object type INTS

[raghav6686]

No description provided.

[cla-assistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[cla-assistant]

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

[GuilhermeSaraiva96]

Thank you for submitting the AFF. I have added a few comments. Since it is a big AFF and it is important that we understand how it works, would you be open for a meeting?

[GuilhermeSaraiva96]

We have spoken within the team, could you please setup a meeting with me (Guilherme Saraiva), Nicolas Huber and Michael Schneider? We do not usually ask for meeting, but due to the urgency of the delivery and the complexity of the AFF, we think it is best.

[GuilhermeSaraiva96]

Sentence case means that only the first letter of the first word is capitalised.
Sorry that you changed all of the descriptions, they need to be reverted

[schneidermic0]

I have added several comments now. In a first step, I would focus on structural changes of the AFF like: bindings and binding_mappings or signature*, modeling* and parameter*.

Furthermore, an example would be nice to see the references of INTM to INTS.

I expect more feedback after this iteration.

[raghav6686]

I have added several comments now. In a first step, I would focus on structural changes of the AFF like: bindings and binding_mappings or signature*, modeling* and parameter*.

Furthermore, an example would be nice to see the references of INTM to INTS.

I expect more feedback after this iteration.

I've done the changes. Please review and let me know in case of any comments.

[raghav6686]

Sentence case means that only the first letter of the first word is capitalised. Sorry that you changed all of the descriptions, they need to be reverted

I've done then changes.

[huber-nicolas]

I only made some comments regarding nameing of fields and titles

[schneidermic0]

I had a look at recent changes. But I haven't managed to look into all details, yet. This object has a huge list of fields.

@huber-nicolas gave some input on differences between the title (shorttext description) and the field name. If possible we should keep them in sync. However, whether you change the field name or the title is up to you. I guess, there we see anyhow further suggestions during UX review. But I would keep them in sync already.

[albertmink]

Thanks @raghav6686. LGTM in my role as UX person

[huber-nicolas]

Looks good to me

[schneidermic0]

Two more small requests. But no crucial changes from my point of view.

I didn't went through completely, yet.

[schneidermic0]

Is classInformation required information? If so, I would expect content within the example.

[raghav6686]

As we discussed earlier, for 2502 we are keeping only few fields for ADT UI and many fields we are hidings and some need to be filled in Original system only. So, this class information, we are hiding as of now, but definitely it's important for us and we'll unhide it in further release. Actually, we got UX review comment to rename the section as General information. Then, we had internal discussion within our team and decided to divide the section similar to our Fiori UI.

[schneidermic0]

Ok, I see. But in this case field classInformation must not be a required structure as it is stated right now.

This is not critical issue. It can be fixed somewhen next week. But for sure you can also fix it now.

[schneidermic0]

Please, don't resolve a conversations. This makes it hard for us to see which questions we need to follow up or what we should double-check after changes. It is sufficient to add your answer.

[raghav6676]

As I mentioned earlier, we're keeping all the fields in the interface and hiding many fields which are not part of 2502. So this class information is for next scope.

But I'm not sure why it's giving empty set in object source JSON. May be because this is a structure?
Actually, I've hidden other tables which are empty from the get_content method and they're not part of the object source JSON. Also, I'm not passing the class information in get_content.

May I know why only empty structure is displayed in the object source JSON and not empty tables?

[schneidermic0]

Sorry, I didn't manage to answer earlier. :(

I think the structure is rendered by default, because it is marked with the $required annotation.

abap-file-formats/file-formats/ints/type/zif_aff_ints_v1.intf.abap

Lines 273 to 274 in 4be83fa

	"! $required
	class_information TYPE ty_class_information,

If I understood your last comment, the classInformation must not be set in any INTS object. Therefore, you could/should remove the $required annotation.