[RVBC] Add new object type RVBC #677
Conversation
|
|
|
|
|
Hi @GuilhermeSaraiva96, Thank you for taking time reviewing our AFF. I have changed the AFF according to the suggestions from the review. Could you please kindly help to have a check again? Best regards, Ray |
|
Hi @GuilhermeSaraiva96 , I have changed the AFF and the description header in the JSON file according to our call yesterday. In addition I added the ID field which is the review booklet ID, which for the similar reason of ina1_service_id it needs to be carried all the way to be able to run RAP based EML statement to identify the correct review booklet and do the corresponding changes. |
Co-authored-by: abaplint[bot] <24845621+abaplint[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
RuixingYangSAP
force-pushed
the
feature/rvbc
branch
from
7407826 to
fbd17c7
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, @RuixingYangSAP . I think you made great improvements.
I have added some further comments/questions.
| "bookletDefinition": { | ||
| "application": "test.app.adt.editor", | ||
| "source": "predefined", | ||
| "status": "draft", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As mentioned in our call, I am wondering whether the draft is the same as active/inactive handling in ABAP
| "application": "test.app.adt.editor", | ||
| "source": "predefined", | ||
| "status": "draft", | ||
| "consistencyStatus": "consistent", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
similar question here:
Usually, in ABAP tools, consistency is checked using syntax-check or (maybe) ATC checks. It is nothing which is stored in the object data. Could I just change it to "inconsistent" in the editor ;)
|
|
||
| File | Cardinality | Definition | Schema | Example | ||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | ||
| `<name>.rvbc.json` | 1 | [`zif_aff_rvbc_v1.intf.abap`](./type/zif_aff_rvbc_v1.intf.abap) | [`rvbc-v1.json`](./rvbc-v1.json) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Link to the example file is missing
| "! <p class="shorttext">Service Name</p> | ||
| "! Service name | ||
| "! $required | ||
| ina1_service TYPE ty_ina1_service_name, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Usually, we try to keep the name of the tile and the field name identical. So either "Service Name" or "INA1 Service".
| "! $values { @link zif_aff_rvbc_v1.data:co_source } | ||
| "! $default { @link zif_aff_rvbc_v1.data:co_source.predefined } | ||
| TYPES ty_source TYPE n LENGTH 1. | ||
| CONSTANTS: | ||
| BEGIN OF co_source, | ||
| "! <p class="shorttext">Predefined</p> | ||
| "! Predefined | ||
| predefined TYPE ty_source VALUE 1, | ||
| "! <p class="shorttext">Custom</p> | ||
| "! Custom | ||
| custom TYPE ty_source VALUE 2, | ||
| END OF co_source. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess the type and the constant is obsolete, now, isn't it?
| PUBLIC. | ||
|
|
||
| TYPES ty_app_id TYPE c LENGTH 70. | ||
| TYPES ty_ina1_service_name TYPE c LENGTH 40. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure. Is the service name really 40 characters long. Most objects only support 30 characters.
No description provided.