ChaRM Framework: An Overview of Existing Consistency Checks
In Change Request Management, the ChaRM Framework is some kind of toolset which provides actions and consistency checks which can be assigned to a user status so they get executed. As customer you copy the standard transaction types to the customer namespace and of course all of the ChaRM Frameworks actions and consistency checks assigned get copied.
But what if you as customer want to change the process and adapt it to your need ? Have I to change the assignment of consistency check to another user status? What are they used for?
Documentation of the ChaRM actions and consistency checks is pretty spare in IMG. This article gives an overview over the existing Charm consistency checks.
Some explained consistency checks require a more-in deep explanation. I have tried to give some more hint with an example describing how it is used in the standard process.
As this is a lot of work as you can imagine, I will start with the consistency checks customized and assigned in the SAP standard transaction types first.
The list covers the currently assigned ChaRM consistency checks of the standard transaction types.
- Request for Change (SMCR)
- Urgent Change (SMHF)
- Normal Change (SMMJ)
- Defect Correction (SMTM)
- Administrative Change (SMAD)
- General Change (SMCG)
- Change Cycles (SMMN, SMMM, SMDM)
But the goal here is to provide a complete list afte a time.
If you find errors and have other comments, just get in contact :-).
By he way, the overview of the ChaRM actions is available here: (http://scn.sap.com/community/it-management/alm/solution-manager/blog/2013/05/08/charm-framework-an-overview-of-actions)
Best regards,
Michael
List builds up on ST 7.10, Support Package 8.
|
ChaRM consistency check name |
The consistency check checks… |
Relevant and customized for | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0YES | Internal use | SMMM, SMMN, SMDV | |
| ALL_TASKS_RELEASED | …if all tasks of the original transport belonging to the change document are released | SMMJ, SMMJ | |
| ANY_CHANGES | …if there are changes done, meaning if the transport belonging to the change document has objects on the piece list | SMHF, SMMJ, SMTM | |
| APPROVER_FILLED | …if the approver in the approval steps of the approval procedure have valid partner functions and partner id’s assigned | SMCR | This consistency check is new with ST 7.10, Support Package 8 |
| BO_LINKS_COMPLETE | …if the current change document has all related documents (task list and change cycle) links assigned. | SMMJ, SMTM, SMAD | |
| CHECK_ACTION_PHASE | …if the ChaRM actions customized to the current user status are allowed in the current phase of the assigned phase cycle | SMMJ |
This depends on a special customizing relvant to the phase controller. The phase controller checks for all participants if the action is allowed to be executed. Participants are f.e. the CRM document, the task list, QGM integration, etc. |
| CHECK_IN_AND_OUT | …if solution objects are checked out currently | SMCR, SMHF, SMMJ, SMTM, SMAD, SMCG | The solution objects are displayed in the ‘Solution’ assignment block |
| DGP_CHECK_OK | …if unapproved downgrade protection conflicts exist | SMHF, SMMJ |
The downgrade protection conflicts can be approved in the ‘Downgrade Protection’ assignment block. |
| FOLLOW_ON_GEN_OK | …if the Request for Change has all information to create the follow-on change documents | SMCR |
The check includes if the ‘Project’ field in the detail assignment block is filled (note that General Changes do not need that), if the scope has an entry and if the change category and ibase information exists. In case it’s an General Change, all iBases can be assigned, for the Administrative Change an iBase of the productive and quality client is valid. For the Normal and Urgent Change we need an iBase of an productive client. All iBases (except for the General Change) have to point to systems in the logical components of the assigned project. |
| IB_SYST_CHK | …if the change document has an iBase assigned | SMCR, SMTM | |
| IMPORT_INTO_PROD_OK | …if the import of the original transport request of the Urgent Change has been successfully imported into the productive client | SMHF | |
| IMPORT_INTO_TEST_OK | …if the import of the original transport request of the Urgent Change has been successfully imported into the test client | SMHF | |
| IMPORT_OF_COPIES_OK | …if the import of the original transport request of the Normal Change has been successfully imported into the productive client | SMMJ |
The Normal Change does not transport the original transport into the test client when the change should to be tested. It always transports a ToC (Transport of Copies) from the original transport request. |
| MAINT_INST | …if the Maintenance cycle for the production system is open | SMHF, SMMJ, SMAD | |
| NO_BUSINESS_PARTNER | …if the current user has a business partner | SMHF, SMMJ, SMTM, SMAD, SMMM, SMMN, SMDV | |
| NO_CHANGES | …if the transport of the change document does not contain objects. No changes were made (empty piece list) | SMHF, SMMJ, SMTM | |
| NO_CRTCL_OBJ | There are no critical objects on the piece list of the transport belonging to the change document | SMMJ | |
| PREDOC_CAN_BE_SET | …if the user status of the predecessor can be changed | SMCR, SMHF, SMMJ, SMAD, SMCG |
Meaning if the predecessor document is not locked (edit mode). Example: An Urgent Change is set to ‘Imported to Production’. In this user status, the ChaRM action ‘SET_PREDOC’ is executed. In IMG activity ‘Make Settings for Change Transaction Types’, area ‘Specify Status Setting for Predecessor Documents’ it is customized that the Request for Change (SMCR) shall be set to user status ‘Implemented’. PREDOC_CAN_BE_SET checks if that can be done |
| PRELIM_PRD_NOT_IMP | …if the preliminary imports have not been imported into the productive system | SMMJ | For more information about the preliminary import process: http://scn.sap.com/community/it-management/alm/solution-manager/blog/2012/06/19/how-to-integrate-the-preliminary-import-functionality-for-customers-with-existing-and-changed-normal-change-user-status-profile-in-solman-71–sp5 |
| PRELIM_TR_IN_PRD_BUF | …if the transport is already in production system import buffer | SMMJ | |
| PREP_FOR_PROD | …if the import into the pre-production client is done | SMHF | Specific for the Urgent Change |
| PRODUCTION_IMPORT_OK | …if the import into the production client is done | SMMJ | Specific for the Normal Change |
| PROJECT_ASSIGNED | …if the Request for Change needs the project field in the ‘General Data’ assignment block filled | SMCR |
In case of only ‘General Changes’ in the scope we do not need project information |
| RETRO_TRANS | …if all transports of a change document have been retrofitted | SMHF, SMMJ, , SMMM, SMMN | |
| RFC_DEST | …if the RFC connection to the ChaRM system exists accordingly | SMHF, SMMJ, SMTM, SMAD, SMMM, SMMN, SMDV | |
| SAME_USER |
Specifies the business partner to which the system compares the business |
SMHF, SMMJ, SMTM, SMAD |
The relevant customizing iIMG activity for SAME_USER is ‘Make Settings for Change Transaction Types’, area ‘Specify Partner Assignment and Check’. Example: The Urgent Change specifies that the user who sets user status E0005 (Successfully Tested) is written in the partner function ‘Tester’ and the developer is not allowed/should not do it(column 4-Eyes Principle…). At the same time the user who sets user status E0004 ‘To Be Tested’ before is written into the partner function ‘Developer’. This customizing ensures with the SAME_USER consistency check customized with an cancel that the developer cannot set the user status ‘Successfully Tested’, meaning he cannot develop and test successfully. Please note that the screenshot with reworked column texts is taken from a coming Support Package.
|
| SUB_ITEMS | …if the dependent follow-on documents have a sufficient user status in respect of the user status set in the current change document | SMMN, SMDV |
This consistency check is mainly used for the change cycles. It checks if the change documents linked to the change cycles have a specified user status (fulfill the customized user status in IMG activity ‘Make Settings for Change Transaction Types’, area ‘Specify Required Status Values for Successor’) to change the phase. For example the Maintenance Cycle is only allowed to go into phase ‘Go Live’ (E0006) in case all defect corrections are ‘Confirmed’, all Urgent Changes have status ‘Authorized for Production’ and the Normal Changes are ‘Successfully Tested’:
|
| SYSTEM_EXIST | …if the scope is filled with at least one item which has the change category and iBase information maintained | SMCR | |
| TASKLIST_ACTIVE | …if the task list status is active | SMHF, SMMJ, SMTM, SMAD |
An example of an active task list.
|
| TASKLIST_CLOSED | …if the task list status is completed | SMHF |
An example of an completed task list.
|
| TR_REQUEST | …if all transport request belonging to the change document are released or deleted | SMHF, SMTM | |
| TWB_TEST_OK | …if a test plan is attached and the test status is ok | SMMJ |
SAP delivers the standard BadI implementation ‘AGS_CHARM_TWB_STATUS_CHECK’ which checks this but customers can implement their own checks via BADI ‘BADI_TWB_CHECKS’. |
Hi Michael,
Excellent document!!! thanks for share!!!
Wences
Hi Michael,
finally a very clear explanation of what each of the consistency checks means and to which change documents they are related to. Thank you for sharing.
I still would like to know if we will be able to use SUB_ITEMS for change documents too instead of only cycles. I had to implement via BADI and new Z condition check a way to control the status changes of an RfC depending on the status of the change documents created by it. In this use case I needed to create new customer status in the RfC and they should only be possible when specific customer status of the change documents were reached. Isn't it possible to have the condition check SUB_ITEMS implemented in class CL_CHM1_INSTANCE (same as PREDOC_CAN_BE_SET) and allow it to be used for all change documents? We already have an IMG activity for configuring that, we only need the existing code to be available.
Best regards,
Raquel
Hi Raquel,
thanks for your comments. I checked the condition SUB_ITEMS. At a first look, I would say it should work without issues to move it to the super class. But before this is officially given to all customers, it should be tested and for us, it's a Prio low so I won't have the capacity to build up a scenario. Maybe, because the change is just copy/paste, I could create a pilot note for your customer if he is willing to test it, so he gets back to standard. And if this is tested, we can put it into the next release. What do you think?
best regards,
Michael
If this would be ok, just mail me the details or create a Prio low message and forward it on my name. The customer has to agree to comment out the customer implementation BadI, then.
Thank you for the feedback Michael. I will contact the customer and if they agree I will let you know.
Best regards,
Raquel
Hi Micheal,
Thanks for your detailed comments on these existing checks. Can we customize these checks by creating a copy of std checks. I am in particular referring to "Check_Action_phase" where in i want to restrict certain actions to be performed only in certain phase of the project cycle. Currently, with the phase of cycle being "In development with release" i am able to process the CD until "Successfully Tested" status. I want to control this and restrict the actions only to be performed during each phase.
Is it possible? if yes, will the existing check works or do we need to create a new one.
Please suggest.
Regards,
Imran
Hi, I have exactly the same requirement, and don't know where to find the customizing point associate. For, certain project, I would like to avoid validate the change (means released the original TR) until we are in "preparation of Golive" Phase on the project.
As I remember, there is some action allowed/not allowed depending on the project phase (SMDV and SMMJ)... but I forgot where is it !?
Regards,
Hi Imran,
you could copy the code but not directly copy the check itself. Customer checks have to be implemented separately.
best regards,
Michael
Hello Micheal,
I am stuck with the following requirement...can you throw some light on how to achieve this requirement.
I have the following requirement.
In a normal change, on change to a particular status, say(Set to In Development) the action behind 'Add Attachment' button must be triggered and the attachment uploaded has to be reflected in the 'Attachments' section.
In short, I must ensure that there is an attachment in the 'Attachment' section for particular statuses.
Is there a way to get this done.
Thanks,
Greg
Hi Greg,
just implement a ChaRM consistency check which checks if the document has an attachment. You can then customize it with a warning message to the 'In development' status, so that it reminds the user in case there is no attachment. And customize it to the next status with 'Cancel', so it resets the user status back to 'In development' in case there is no attachment.
Hope that helps,
best regards,
Michael
Hi Micheal,
Thanks for your response. I am very new to SolMan and would be greatful if you can provide some more inputs.
I will find the way to check if a document is attached in the attachment tab but my requirement is such that different documents must be mandatory for different status. ie...Tech spec must be mandatory when status changes to 'Set to code review', code review checklist must be mandatory for 'To be Tested' and so on....so do you mean that for first status, I must check if the number of attachment = 1 and for the next status, the no. of attachment = 2, and if it fails, cancel the status update and revert it to the current status.
Am I right are am I missing something?
Also would be great if you can help me with the way to check for the document in the attachment tab using consistency check.
Hope I must implement SOCM_CHECK_CONDITION badi.....but not sure how to read if there is a document in the attachment tab.
Thanks for the help.
Best Regards,
Greg
Hi Greg,
sure you should use SOCM_CHECK_CONDITION badi. The rest of your questions are design questions your developer (or you have to clarify).
You can read the attachments like this if you have the GUID.
CALL FUNCTION 'ICT_READ_ATTACHMENTS'
EXPORTING
i_crm_id = lv_guid
" I_IDS_ONLY = abap_true
IMPORTING
e_t_document = lt_docs
e_t_url = lt_urls.
How you check it is design. F.e. the you could agree that the documents follow a specific naming convention. Which means a document containing the string 'SDD' is a technical design document, etc. You might as well implement a customizing table where you define the relevant strings of the attachments for the relevant user status and transaction types ;-). I believe the pure number of attachments is no good criteria,
best regards,
Michael
Many thanks Michael....I will try implementing this!
Just a thought.....can the consistency check be applied for button click too.....Like if there is an active TR already available, the user must be restricted from creating another TR. he must be able to create only if all the TRs are released.
Best Regards,
Greg
That worked as desired! Many Thanks Michael! 🙂
Best Regards,
Greg
Just to add, we have not implemented Document Management......We are only using the 'Attachments' section.
Best Regards,
Gregory
Hi, very nice blog, thanks.
I use this way to point out a IMHO unhappy configuration for the checks in the SMCR and therefore in the copied transaction types.
SAP skilled users do all right :-). But we rolled out YMCR and YMCG for the IT Infrastructure, and these skilled admins succeed in creating and approving RfCs with empty or crippled scope assignment blocks. Thus the RfC workflow stops in the status "Approved".
To avoid this, we added the check SYSTEM_EXISTS also for the status E0012 To Be Approved, thus enforcing a correct scope assignment, because it's the scope which will be approved, or not?
The destination user status should be empty because there can be two (Validation and Scope Extention)
Hello and thank you this very nice information.
We have business partners which are locked because they don't work any more. Customer want's to lock those and after that change requests are locked too because of message "Business partner is locked". Is there any other possibility to use those business partners and mark them "somehow" obsolete. These business partners has relationship for real person. Anyone any ideas how to handle this?
Hi Tuulia,
I have some more questions to understand what would be a relevant solution.
You could maybe check if it is possible to adjust the title of the people from Ms./Mr. to 'Locked'. I would expect that somewhere you can customize titles...
then instead of the Mr. you would have a (Locked) before. Check how many characters are available.
Or do you want more to replace the bp's so you can use the change again? Then I would create a PPF action which checks if the document has a locked user via coding and in case replaces it by a standard user where you report on, so you see all documents which have this user and where you have to do something (assign new valid business partner). The PPF action should log in the text at least which bp was replaced.
The PPF condition could be that it runs each time (the document is saved). If this makes to much performance, the best way (which I do technically not know where to start here) would to enhance the bp maintenance. If a user is locked a background job or a function module in new task is started which checks where the bp is used and replaces them.
Maybe I could help,
best regards,
Michael
Hi Michael,
I'm confused
SP 12