AFF for Lock Objects (ENQU)

[anne-hobbs]

AFF definition for Lock Objects (ENQU)

[cla-assistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[cla-assistant]

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

[schneidermic0]

Thanks @anne-hobbs for your contribution. 👍

In a first iteration I went only over the example file and added some suggestions/ideas/questions there.

[wurzka]

I found one issue, but I'm not sure whether this is related to the failing check

[albertmink]

@anne-hobbs f7d1d5f adds the missing metadata file for the ABAP interface

[albertmink]

@larshp just wanted to let you know that the JSON Schema generation looks off. Maybe you know more?
To me, it looks like this is not related to the repository/pr here. Looks more like a tool issue.

[larshp]

yea, its fixed, with the commit above updating the branch

[wurzka]

@anne-hobbs, thanks for the adaption. My review now is based on the structure of the AFF & mandatory fields. Please see my comments.

And @larshp, thanks for fixing 🙏

[wurzka]

Should anything be required here? So for a lock parameter, is anything field of them mandatory to be filled?

[anne-hobbs]

Hard to say. The lock parameter candidates are always derived from the primary keys of the tables and thus determined by the framework. The only thing that can actually be changed is the name and if it's active or not. Would you recommend setting all three (field, table, name) as required or just the name as it's the only changable part here?

[wurzka]

I think it depends on what is a correct JSON. I understand that name, table and field must be filled, i.e.

{ "name": "bla" }

would not be valid, right? Therefore, I tend to also make table and field required.

One other question since I just compare the ADT editor with the JSON here: What does active mean? Is it meant that if active true, then the field is a lock parameter? If yes, I'm wondering if we really need the field and if it isn't enough to be a part of the table lockParameters for being a "lock parameter".

[anne-hobbs]

Active in this case means that it is included in the generation of the lock modules and part of the locking mechanism. All entries in the "lockParameter" section are derived from primary keys and cannot be removed (or others manually added) so this flag is necessary (and besides the name the only one thats actually editable by the user)

[wurzka]

If the "lockParameter" entries are derived from the primary key, are they transported with the lock object?
What does a "lockParameter" with active = false mean?

[anne-hobbs]

Yes, they are as the user has to name them (I don't know why though) and decide if they are going to be considered for the lock module or not.

If a lock parameter is set to active = false then it means that the entries for that table (whose key it is) are not going to be locked when the corresponding entry in the primary table gets locked. You could consider it an "off" switch so to say.

[wurzka]

Does the user also have to name them for active = false?

[github-actions]

ABAP Doc Checks

• Run ABAP Doc title/description casing check