Skip to Content
Technical Articles

Transport Request Check Tool


While many of us would like to simulate/check our transport request for error before we import the changes into production system, it becomes almost a necessity during big Go-Live’s / Release Management phase to sequence the transport request and check dependency between requests.

Although there are lot of solutions already been implemented like the followings

Home Made Transport Sequencer
Transport Checking Tool Object Level
Program to Simulate Transport Request

it is always best to use tools provided by SAP.


With ST-PI component, SAP has delivered tcode /SDF/TRCHECK (program: /SDF/CMO_TR_CHECK) which makes sure errors of transport request gets detected before TR is imported to production system.

Refer to program documentation for details.

Lot more details can be found in

Note: 2475591
TR check tool


Given that we have a solution doesn’t mean we end up using it to the best of its value. Hence it will be great to integrate this with SE10. 😉

I implemented BADI: CTS_REQUEST_CHECK to execute report: /SDF/CMO_TR_CHECK before releasing the transport request (method: CHECK_BEFORE_RELEASE) and then giving a pop-up to decide if I wish to continue to release the transport request.

Also I created a custom SET/GET parameter to ensure BADI calls report only when the user parameter is set to X.

To conclude:

Results are good 🙂

Identifies if objects are missing in production system.

Catches missing transport request.

Can be a life saver 🙂


Update 31st July 2020.

Code as follows:

"----------------------------------------------------- Data Declaration

  lr_transports    TYPE RANGE OF e070-trkorr,
  lv_answer        TYPE char1,
  lf_perform_check TYPE xfeld.

  co_none       TYPE rfcdes-rfcdest VALUE 'NONE',
  co_production TYPE rfcdes-rfcdest VALUE 'RFC_FOR_PROD'.

"--------------------------------------------------------- Logical Code

CLEAR: lf_perform_check.
"---- Get parameter to check if TR check should be executed.
"---- This is done to control which users should be able to use this
"---- feature. Also helpful to switch off for certain transports where
"---- note or too many objects are being sent. Timeout can occur.
IF lf_perform_check IS NOT INITIAL.

  "----- Get main request
    FROM e070
    INTO @DATA(lv_main_transport)
   WHERE trkorr EQ @request.
  IF sy-subrc IS NOT INITIAL.
    "--- No Main TR ???
    "--- Impossible..
    RAISE cancel.

  CLEAR: lr_transports[].
  "---- Collect TR in range
  APPEND VALUE #( sign = 'I' option = 'EQ' low = lv_main_transport )
  TO lr_transports.

  "--- Note: We have excluded/included certain options.
  "--- This is done for our requirement, you can select
  "--- any of the below based on your requirement.

  "--- Call report to check transport request
  SUBMIT /sdf/cmo_tr_check
    WITH p_source = co_none               "-- Source System
    WITH p_target = co_production         "-- Target System
    WITH r_prj_co = abap_true             "-- Check TR
    WITH p_ori_tr IN lr_transports           "-- Give TR number
    WITH p_crsref = abap_true             "-- Cross reference
  "-- WITH p_dgp    = abap_true         "-- Sequence Check
    WITH p_swcomp = abap_true             "-- Cross release
  "-- WITH p_imptim = abap_true         "-- Import Time in source
  "-- WITH p_oichck = abap_true         "-- Online import check

  CLEAR: lv_answer.
  "---- Confirm from User if he wishes to release TR
      titlebar              = TEXT-a01 "-- Release Transport Request
      text_question         = TEXT-a02 "-- Continue to release TR ?
      display_cancel_button = abap_true
      answer                = lv_answer
      text_not_found        = 1
      OTHERS                = 2.
  IF sy-subrc <> 0.
    CLEAR: lv_answer.

  IF lv_answer EQ '1'.
    "--- Release transport request
    "--- Cancel release of TR
    RAISE cancel.
You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.
  • I really need to add that I like this transport checker, but in my opinion it's something which need to be integrated in a process and not at such a place.

    When people really care about releases and transports the tool is something which just make sure for the quality manager everything is really fine.

    Because just releasing the transport does not save you via "STMS", and that's just one example 😉

    • With before_release method, we can identify errors before releasing the TR and stop the release. Then we can make corrections before releasing the TR itself.

      It might save from "STMS" in this case.

  • We are currently experimenting with /SDF/CMO_TR_CHECK as well but are looking for another option:

    • We usually have one transport day per week where changes make it into the productive systems.
    • Developers have to have those of their transports they want to have imported released from the QA-system by (high)noon on that day.
    • Shortly after noon a batch job fills the import queues
    • we have set up a batch job which runs shortly afterwards and executes /SDF/CMO_TR_CHECK following a step for program RSTMSCOL to refresh the queues (it would actually be good if the ST-PI program did just that at the beginning - or have the option to trigger it e.g. via another checkbox on the selection-screen)
    • The plan is to then have developers use program /SDF/CMO_TR_CHECK_HISTORY to look at the results and if need be provide missing transports to be manually added to the queue
    • The first imports into production happen 2 to 3 hours later into a system for Asia-Pacific countries giving us some wiggle-room for corrective measures.

    While experimenting with the program, we noticed that it did catch some issues which could then be corrected before hitting production.



  • Today I learned that /SDF/TRCHECK exists. 🙂 We have a home-grown program with similar purpose but I've had some issues with it recently as it doesn't seem to work with the classes and SE91 messages. So this should be useful, I hope.

    Thanks for sharing!

  • Thanks Abhijit for sharing information with us..

    We have also asked our team to note down the points related to this report.

    One of the points that I noted is that in a standard table if .INCLUDE structure is not yet implemented then the report gives error of object does not exist in target system which is quite confusing.

    Currently our plan is to observe report for a while and the we can submit all findings to SAP at once.

    • Rameez Khan

      Thanks for a nice blog, I was excited to try out this transaction., but I am greatly disappointed with the cross reference errors which makes this transaction almost obsolete for us. How did your team address this? Are you able to use this transaction? Any insights?



      • Hello Suneetha Yanimineni ,

        Can you please elaborate on "almost obsolete for us".

        Because we have already integrated this transaction with SE10 and it works very well for us. It checks for error before we could import them to  production system.

        Eg of some errors.

        1. Objects not in production system and not included in transport request which might give error after import.
        2. It helps us to identify missing transport request if any.
        3. It also helps us to sequence our transport request before importing to production.

        Let me know what problem's you are facing with this transaction in details.


        Rameez Khan

        • Hi Rameez Khan

          Its the same error that you mentioned on your previous comment.

          "One of the points that I noted is that in a standard table if .INCLUDE structure is not yet implemented then the report gives error of object does not exist in target system which is quite confusing." How did your team overcome with this?

          I have a report program which has CI include and in the current version of my program, I am not referencing any of the fields from the CI include, but the transport check tool shows me an error.

          Another instance is on the SD user exit enhancements. This transaction checks for all the cross reference objects and other enhancements and errors about other enhancements which will be moved later. I would not expect an error in this case too.


  • Thanks, very helpful if you want to clean up the import queue and have to examine hundreds of transports that never went productive.
    However, when processing a complete import queue, we still have an error, which we have not yet been able to get under control with OSS messages. It is called "Error in /SDF/TEAP_ENVI_ANA" (S1/333). Does anyone have the same problem ?

  • Hi Rameez Khan

    Your idea is very useful, thank you very much to share this article with the SAP Community.

    I would like to know how could you execute the report /SDF/CMO_TR_CHECK? Did you use a batch input program?

    Thanks in advance.


  • Hi Rameez,

    Can you share the code which you have used in se10 BADI, check before release to integrate it with SE10.

    Thanks in advance

  • This helps a lot. We integrated this SOLMAN, n our system. but I have a question on this-

    While comparing versions, does it consider 'indentation and comments' or ignore? because we think it considers and throws warning message.

    if it considers then is there any option to ignore 'indentation and comments'?