Hello folks,
System Info:
NW AS 7.03 ABAP Stack 731 Level 13, ECC 606 (EHP 6) with SAP_HR 604 Level 78 and EA_HR 607 (HR-Renewal 1) Level 29
Background:
We are currently using the old WDJ scenarios for Display/Editing of the Infotypes IT0006 and IT0009 but now want to switch to using the WDA-based solution HRESS_AC_PERSINFO. I have already enhanceed the FPM-Configs to allow for a dedicated selection of IT0006 and IT0009 and hid all the other UIBBs available in Standard. The field Control maintained in V_T588MFPROPC hasn't been changed since it should (and does) apply for WDA as well as for WDJ. Screen of the field control (Note: we are in Germany Public Sector, that's why it's 'OE' instead of '01'):
Note: In case you are wondering why most of the fields are set read-only, yet mandatory: All read-only fields should be available for display purposes only (naturally) and their content is drawn merely from the IBAN. However, if for some reason (choose any reason you like) one of these fields should not be polled correctly or be cleared the application has to crash at this point, i.e. the process has to break. That is the case because internally we still need bank account number and the bank code and there is no further "defense-line" for plausibility in our external FI System (non-SAP).
Problem:
When I enter into edit mode of the IT0009's UIBB it all looks good, i.e. the field control is correctly adapted:
However, what happens when an employee enters an incorrect IBAN, the plausibility check AND the field control go entirely haywire. The following screenshot shows what happens when I enter a wrong IBAN:
The first thing that's nonsensial, is that an error is thrown that states that the field EMFTX is not filled (as you can see it IS filled). Furthermore, what's even worse, the fields BANKL, EMFTX and BANKN become editable which must never never never happen.
What I tried so far / Analysis:
I have not yet debugged into the depths of the GUIBB, instead I used ANST to check for standard corrections. From ANST's output I have implemented Notes 2013604 and 2020932 to no avail. I also tried to implement Note 2049483, but it seems to be faulty and can't be cleanly implemented (I raised a message for BC-UPG-NA subsequently).
Has anybody ever encountered something alike? Is there something I'm missing?
Cheers, Lukas