Skip to Content
Technical Articles

Setting up a central ATC-system: Part 5 – Keeping an eye on things

Since going live with our central ATC-system in October 2018 some additional things have come to light which warrant more than just an update to one of the existing articles in this series. As we learn more, I’ll keep adding to this post, so even if it starts out fairly small, it’s bound to increase in size over time.

Keeping an eye on OSS-Notes

We wanted to start running S/4HANA Readiness checks based on the latest version of the simplification database (1809) and thought that we had gone through all the necessary steps. But, as I learned via a question on Q&A and helpful hints from Florian Henninger we had actually overlooked that an updated version of OSS-Note “2241080 – SAP S/4HANA: Content for checking customer specific code” had been published at the end of October 2018. Once we had downloaded the most recent “Simplification Database Content” mentioned in the note we were all set to setup the readiness checks.

This is most definitely an OSS-note worth putting on your “watch list”!

Keeping an eye on user-accounts

As we make use of trusted RFC-connections between the satellite systems and the central ATC-system, all users potentially running ATC-checks need to be known across systems. We had a few occasions where users were able to work in the satellite-sytem(s) but then couldn’t run ATC-checks because they either didn’t have a user in the central system yet or their user was no longer valid.This then gets reported as a tool failure in the satellite system and drilling down on the message will give a hint of the user not being valid in the central system. Incidentally, each thus issue causes an actual dump listed in ST22 in the central system (not sure a dump is actually warranted for a mere “not authorised” error?).

Due to the fact that we are currently in the process to move user-distribution from a customer solution to the IDM and that this is not yet working across systems, we currently unfortunately need to remember to synch-up users manually.

Keeping an eye on ATC-results

I’ve made it a habit to briefly check ATC-results on an almost daily basis for modifiable transport requests or potential issues with getting transports released in the satellite-systems. This doesn’t take long as I’m mainly checking for any issues like tool failures or repeated occurrences of priority 1 & 2 findings for the listed transport requests. If need be I touch base with the impacted developers to find out what the issue might be. More often than not, they beat me to the finish line by requesting an exemption, though!

Keeping an eye on exemption requests

Speaking of exemption requests: we found out that the notification emails sometimes (or for some colleagues) end up in the spam folder of Outlook where they then tend to be overlooked. We haven’t yet found out why this is happening as it seems to be a bit of a moving target.

It’s also not quite as easy as initially thought to have everybody requesting an exemption consistently pick our specific ATC-Approver user from the list of available users instead of a specific person even though this has been communicated and documented.

Due to this, it makes sense to at least every once in a while check out the exemption browser in the central system (or just wait until affected developers send an email to ask about their request!).

Keep an eye out for more!

As mentioned at the beginning, I’ll keep adding to this post as things come up and would also like to read about your experiences with ATC-central checks in the comments!

Cheers

Bärbel


Here are the links to the other parts of the series for easy reference:

Part 1: Setting the stage

Part 2: Preparing the systems

Part 3: Tweaking the settings to our liking

Part 4: The final stretch

For the overall journey, please see the long, long winding road edition.

6 Comments
You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.
  • Awesome blog series. It’s really helpful to see a “real” world example on this. I recommend the scenario to a lot customers.

    Currently I’m working on a solution to send the ATC-results via mail to the responsible developers and more over want to add some “gamification” — for example how much findings did you have.. what’s the average timeline between finding and fixing it and so on. So it’s good to see, that others also on the road to make automatic quality checks work for them.

    ~Florian