Skip to Content

Personas – Enabling Configuration Check of Target Systems

With SAP Screen Personas 2.0 SP02, it is now possible to check if the basic configurations are in place and whether they are good to enable the client to render. This option is available in the Personas Admin UI (transaction: /PERSOS/ADMIN_UI) as part of the “Tools” that have been introduced with SP02.

The architecture of Personas 2.0 enables one to have multiple system landscape, where the personas add-on is installed on the main system and the client is then connected to the target systems. This puts an additional requirement to ensure that the configurations are in place in both the main system as well as the target system. The complexity is further compounded by the fact that it is the client that connects with the target system directly (via HTTP(S)).

Since the Personas add-on is installed on the main system, it is relatively easy to acquire the information about the configurations that are in place on the main system. However for the target system, a connection is necessary to retrieve the configuration information. In some cases, it is also important to make sure that the tool mimics the behavior of the client so as to get a better understanding of the configuration and its impact on the client. To ensure this, a HTTP connection has to be created from the main system to the target system. This connection needs to be maintained for each target system that is configured for Personas.

The following steps need to be followed to enable the configuration check for target systems.

RFC Destination Definition

Maintain a RFC Destination of type “H” (HTTP Connection to ABAP system). For this destination, the host and port needs to be provided. The “Target Prefix” should be left empty. During the check, the required end points are automatically constructed using the host and port. The logon and security details need to be maintained according to the landscape.


Maintain System Details

Once the RFC destination has been maintained, the same needs to be referred to in the Personas target system definition (SPRO > … > SAP Screen Personas > Maintain System). 

Once the above is implemented and the connection tested, the configuration checks should reflect the status of the target system. If the above is not maintained, then the tool would indicate a warning for the relevant checks with the info “Unable to determine configuration”.

You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.
  • Thanks Sathish, this will help to get rid of those pesky warning messages 🙂

    I’m actually wondering why was the check designed to attempt looking for an HTTP connection in all cases. Since the usage of the different main system / target system landscape is not too common, I think it would have been a better decision to not require a separate HTTP connection be set up just for this purpose. I mean, wouldn’t it be easier to assume that if there is no HTTP destination specified in SPRO, then the main and target system are the same and perform the check accordingly? This would avoid the misleading warnings.

    • Hi Tamas,

      For some cases, we wanted to do a HTTP check to determine the actual status rather than check directly on the system. This provides the tool an insight into whether the HTTP interfaces are working fine.


      • I understand that to avoid false ‘correct’ results, you may not want to automatically check the same system if there is no HTTP connection defined. Perhaps allowing something like * or NONE as an indication for the target system equals main system would be better. In that case, the person doing the configuration would explicitly mark that the two are the same which is the majority of the landscapes.

        Again, having to define an RFC destination just for this purpose (which is not used for anything else) is awkward. Especially since access to SM59 is usually not provided for people who deal with Personas and basis folks don’t like to set up RFC destinations if there is no practical need for them otherwise.

  • Hi Sathish,

    When attempting to create the RFC destination as you detailed I’m receiving an HTTP 404 – Not Found error when testing the connection. I’ve validated the host and port # are correct and working since I can successfully test the restgui service. The logon procedure I’m using is an SAP RFC Logon and the user has SAP_ALL.

    Any suggestions on where I should look?

    • I was instructed by another user in the SCN to add the prefix path “/sap/public/ping” when testing the RFC destination. When successful with the test, the prefix path needs to be removed for use by the configuration check tool.

  • Hello Satish,

    I’ve created the HTTP connection for the target system (ERP) using the server name (FQDN) and port (HTTP port 8000) and checking of destination works fine.

    However, when opening the personas UI and selecting the desired backend, an error message “Access to system denied. Please contact system admin.”.

    Here are the checks I’ve already performed:

    -) *.xml files for cross domain access are in place, system has been restartet afterwards

    -) service “restgui” exists on target system

    -) all available notes have been implemented

    Any idea what may be the reason for this issue?

    Thanks & regards


  • Hello Sathish,

    I’ve created the HTTP destination as mentioned by you. However, I’ve got the same issue as Elder, meaning receiving an HTTP 404 error. Could you post some more details, e.g. screenshots, how the settings should look like? By adding “/sap/public/ping”, the HTTP request has status 200, however, I assume this won’t work for the config check function.

    Thanks & regards


  • Hi Sathish,

    I totally agree with Tamas that a provision should be there to not maintain the HTTP RFC connection for the same Main & Target system.

    I am setting up a test environment, when trying to maintain an HTTP RFC connection i am getting the error “HTTPIO_ERROR_READ_SECURE_STORAGE-Fehlermeldung bei”.

    Now i am completely stuck and cannot move further. If this provision would have been there i could have easily proceeded.