Re: Issue 121 in zaplink: Public section of XXX has been regenerated because differences have been detected
zap...@googlecode.com
Labels: Detected_on_Release-0.0.007 Release-0.0.008
Comment #3 on issue 121 by tar...@bensiali.net: Public section of XXX has
been regenerated because differences have been detected
http://code.google.com/p/zaplink/issues/detail?id=121
(No comment was entered for this change.)
zap...@googlecode.com
Comment #4 on issue 121 by tar...@bensiali.net: Public section of XXX has
http://code.google.com/p/zaplink/issues/detail?id=121
Hy,
I've installed Transport Request on my SAP system. I've got some errors
like for class YDILINKEDBINDINGIMPL where check provide no errors (like
SCI) and activation neither.
But there is, take a look to the provided screen shoot you've got two time
the same interface : YDIBINDING & YDIELEMENT
Why it's not detected by SAP, i don't know, but this could be a reason why
your loosing interface implementations.
I'll still investigate.
Attachments:
Twice time same interface.JPG 87.8 KB
zap...@googlecode.com
Comment #5 on issue 121 by tar...@bensiali.net: Public section of XXX has
http://code.google.com/p/zaplink/issues/detail?id=121
Same trouble happend with CLASS (this makes SCI Short dumps) :
* YDIUNTARGETTEDBINDINGIMPL
I've run SCI after that it seem's to work.
I've exported and got the following changes (see Export log.zip).
Where :
* yyyy section of YDIxxx has been regenerated because differences have been
detected : To ensure CODE SIGNATURE will be the same after import on target
system. Those action are equivalent to menu Utilities->Regenerates Section
in SE24. For info this might be the same problem your talking with you
[http://forums.sdn.sap.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1839100&tstart=0 java
anotation]
* ABAP of YDIxxx has been regenerated because differences have been
detected : This clean up operation is removing all type pool not required,
because SAP might add them sometimes. This action is performed in
_CLEANUP_CLASS of object ZAPLINK_OBJECT. You could disable it by
adding "RETURN." at the very first line. If you think this action is not
good, you could open an issue for that to discuss the different points of
views.
After exporting again I've no longer have any warning message. The XML
container I've build is provided in YDI.ZIP
Attachments:
Export Log.zip 3.2 KB
YDI.zip 26.1 KB
zap...@googlecode.com
Comment #6 on issue 121 by tar...@bensiali.net: Public section of XXX has
http://code.google.com/p/zaplink/issues/detail?id=121
After trying the way that I describe in
[http://code.google.com/p/abap-di/wiki/Installation#commentlist your
installation page] in the comment section.
I've got activation error due to Issue 120 which is corrected but will be
released in Framework version 0.0.008. You might apply the fix manully on
your current version.
Sorry for the trouble, Issue 120, was my mistake. I appologize for the time
you loose on that Issue.
Let me know if after applying correction of Issue 120 you problem is over.
I'll close the Issue then.
zap...@googlecode.com
Comment #7 on issue 121 by dominik.zalewski: Public section of XXX has been
http://code.google.com/p/zaplink/issues/detail?id=121
As far as I understand what you have done is the following:
* IMPORT CASE: you identified that there was a problem with empty method
implementations (Issue 120). This fixes the problem that when importing
ZAPlink file some methods were not properly imported and therefore SCI
reported errors.
* EXPORT CASE: you identified that for a couple of classes there is a case
that the interface is included TWICE on the interfaces tab. Actually I
don't see why you regard this as an error because SE80 clearly shows that
one interface comes from the superclass and the other comes from the class
itself. I'm not saying that I cannot remove one interface reference (I
probably will) so that this weird situation is not happening, but since SCI
does not report any error, I would not regard this as ABAP bug.
But the above does not fix the exporting error, which is that the code gets
regenerated. From what you write you did the following:
- ran SCI over the package (successful)
- ran export over package (reporting warning with regeneration)
- ran export again
You claim that the last export did not report any warnings. I'm sure it
didn't because the previous export regenerated some sections. But what you
did not do is RUN SCI AGAIN.
Could I ask you please to run SCI on exported code again and report to me
whether SCI reports errors? I'm sure it will.
I cannot see in your description how you fixed the EXPORT case. For me it
looks like there is no change from your side so I bet it will not work as
in the past.
zap...@googlecode.com
Comment #8 on issue 121 by tar...@bensiali.net: Public section of XXX has
http://code.google.com/p/zaplink/issues/detail?id=121
"Actually I don't see why you regard this as an error because SE80 clearly
shows that one interface comes from the superclass and the other comes from
the class itself"
May be it's like :
"for testing duration short risk level harmless" it's a difference between
EHP1 and EHP2. But in our system adding more than one time a interface
leads to compilation error, that why I have to fix it. So depending on your
target, you should "think" EHP1 or EHP2...
For export there is nothing to fix, for now. Regeneratin section is done by
SAP function module each time difference are detected. This is required to
ensure same code signature after import on an other system.
For investigation, you could manully do it yourself by doing
Utilities->Regenerates Section in SE24 on class that are reported to change
by ZAPLink. You'll be able to investigate changes done to understand why
SCI reports errors and provide us the section source code before and after
regenerating sections.
I'll try to also test SCI errors on my EHP1 system as requested.
zap...@googlecode.com
Labels: -Priority-High Priority-Medium
Comment #9 on issue 121 by tar...@bensiali.net: Public section of XXX has
been regenerated because differences have been detected
http://code.google.com/p/zaplink/issues/detail?id=121
(No comment was entered for this change.)
zap...@googlecode.com
Comment #10 on issue 121 by tar...@bensiali.net: Public section of XXX has
http://code.google.com/p/zaplink/issues/detail?id=121
We do not have the Same SAP version, this might be the reason of the
differences.
When I use SGEN on your transport request i've got the following result (no
errors, 78 object generated).
When I use SCI I've got :
* 3 implementation missing error (which is a warning object activated)
* 26 Dead Code Error in SCI
When I use SCI for the first time I've got :
* 1 Interface statement more than once (which is an error)
* 121 Dead code Error in SCI
I think that your sections contains pseudo code that is lost after SAP
standard Section regeneration. Please try Utilities->Regenerates Section in
SE24 on :
* CLAS - YDIBINDINGBUILDER
* CLAS - YDIBINDINGIMPL
* CLAS - YDICONSTRUCTIONCONTEXT
* CLAS - YDICONSTRUCTORINJECTOR
* CLAS - YDIDEFAULTCONSTRUCTIONPROXY
* CLAS - YDIDEPENDENCY
* CLAS - YDIINJECTIONPOINT
* CLAS - YDIINJECTORSHELL
* CLAS - YDIKEY
* CLAS - YDIMEMBERSINJECTORIMPL
* CLAS - YDISINGLEPARAMETERINJECTOR
* CLAS - YDIUNTARGETTEDBINDINGIMPL
You should get the same trouble with SCI.
Provide me sections before and after regeneration to understand the problem.
I do not have the same result as you on SAP Trai 7.01 EHP1.
Attachments:
SGEN Result.JPG 112 KB
zap...@googlecode.com
Labels: -Release-0.0.008
Comment #11 on issue 121 by tar...@bensiali.net: Public section of XXX has
been regenerated because differences have been detected
http://code.google.com/p/zaplink/issues/detail?id=121
(No comment was entered for this change.)
zap...@googlecode.com
Status: Duplicate
Labels: Release-0.0.008
Mergedinto: 120
Comment #12 on issue 121 by tar...@bensiali.net: Public section of XXX has
been regenerated because differences have been detected
http://code.google.com/p/zaplink/issues/detail?id=121
Same as Issue 120