See how to customize an ABAP Test Cockpit (ATC) check variant, to transport it, and to set up ATC reports. You can understand the techniques needed to determine if an error should be corrected or ignored and learn to manage the mass results of ATC reports runs.
Reading this article you will learn:
- Tips on techniques for customization of the ABAP Test Cockpit (ATC) check variant and its step-by-step setup
- Execution steps and usage guidelines for ATC reports
- When to and how to leverage the mass deletion feature of ATC results
SAP NetWeaver ABAP Test Cockpit (ATC) is a freely available tool for static quality checks of ABAP programs. It offers full as well as partial automated quality checks based on SAP’s best practices of ABAP programming. In its free version, ATC is a blend of Code Inspector, syntax checks, and extended check tools. On the top of the combination of these tools, ATC is also integrated within the development workbench and offers reporting, exemption workflow, and transport block features. ATC checks are classified into categories such as performance, security, and programming. These checks are predefined rules present in the ATC check variant, which is nothing but the Code Inspector check variant. This variant can be customized based on a project or the SAP landscape requirements.
The SAP NetWeaver ABAP Test Cockpit (ATC) verifies the quality of ABAP objects in multiple areas and assigns priorities to these different categories of checks based on their impact. These checks are customizable and transportable. ATC is an SAP NetWeaver feature and is available from enhancement package 2 for SAP NetWeaver 7.0 with Support Package Stack 12.
This is part 2 of my three-article series on ATC. Part 1 focused on step-by-step details of the ATC setup and usage scenarios along with insight from my experiences. In this part, I cover customization of an ATC check variant, its transport, and ATC reporting, along with the feature for mass deletion of ATC results. The execution and analysis of ATC reports play important roles in deciding whether a given error should be rectified or ignored.