![]() There is a syntax error if the syntax check recognizes that f1 and f2 are not part of the same structure.If the syntax check recognizes that both f1 and f2 are components of the same structure, the valid RANGE area is defined from the smallest structure containing f1 and f2.If the RANGE addition is not specified, it is implicitly defined with FROM f1 NEXT f2 as follows: ![]() For f3, only structures and elementary fields of the types C, N, or X are permitted. If the RANGE f3 addition is specified, a syntax or runtime error is triggered, should f1 or f2 not be included in f3. This means that you need a RANGE addition. To avoid overwriting memory contents, a RANGE for valid accesses is implicitly or explicitly implemented for these statements.Įrror: Could not specify the access range automatically. With these statements, the fields f, f1 and f2 must be type-compatible with one another. ![]() To fix it, the following FM can be used, where structure is exported in the FM and it returns the contents in a string. It'll lead to Mutually unconvertible error in ECC 6.0 version. Where umsetz is a structure and varihoc is of type string.ĮRROR: umsetz cannot be converted to a character-type field. The solutions for different cases can be:Įxample: MOVE umsetz TO varihoch. But In ECC 6.0, the 2 structures need to be exactly same, otherwise an error is thrown. Also the Move statement for 2 structures having different components was allowed. TYPE 1: MUTUALLY UNCONVERTIBLE ERROR: In earlier versions, the assignment of structure to string or vice - versa was allowed. Although even if your not using MDMP, Unicode Complaince is still best practice. * Unicode Complaince is mandatory for ECC 6.0 only if you are running a MDMP system, meaning Multiple Code pages. When upgrading the system, all the syntax errors generated in UCCHECK need to be fixed.* COMMON ERRORS FOUND IN THE UCCHECK AND THEIR SOLUTIONS
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |