I am trying to put a report from two different universes. is it possible to add fields from both universes into a single report?
Yes, this is a commonly used functionality. However there are rules on how to combine data sets (be it from the same or a different universe) and what you can do with them.
As this is a quite extensive topic, I suggest you have a look at the Web Intelligence (I'm assuming this is the application you're using, as you haven't specified it) manuals, corresponding to the version of BusinessObjects you're using. The manuals are available at help.sap.com.
You might also find the interactive tutorials available on sap.com/LearnBI helpful.
Related
I'm looking for advice on structuring FlatBuffer schemas for a framework which allows users to extend the data types defined by the framework, but also allows the framework developers to add new fields when new versions of the framework are published.
My original thinking was that when you create a project using this framework, it would generate several FlatBuffer schema files which you could then edit for your specific project. You could then compile the schemas and start developing code using the framework APIs.
However, this becomes a problem when the framework developers decide to add fields to the base types. As you probably know, FlatBuffers requires that any additional fields be appended to the end (or at least have a higher ID than other fields). So there is a conflict between the additions made by the framework developer and the framework user.
One possible solution would be to have a set of 'non-user-extensible' types that are owned by the framework creator, and which should not be modified by users of the framework; and these types would then be embedded within the data types defined by the framework user. However, given the restrictions on fields changing size, I am not sure if this would even work.
I'm also willing to hear alternatives to using flatbuffers if it turns out that there is no good solution otherwise.
To have open ended extension like that, you should really have the framework authors and users work in two separate tables.. where one can own the other. There is no good way to extend a single table if all contributors aren't sharing the schema in source control.
If these extensions must be in a single object for whatever reason, then Protocol Buffers is more flexible than FlatBuffers, since it doesn't require adjacent field ids. You can simply say that all field ids >=1000 are for framework users, for example.
In retrospect (answering my own question two years later), it seems that FlatBuffers was not the right choice for my use case. These days I'm using a combination of msgpack (in cases where I care about byte-size) and JSON (in cases where I don't) and I'm pretty happy with each.
There's an upcoming project at work to fill a requirement that end-users be able to generate custom reports off their data in within our fixed/known-schema relational database.
The interface needs to be very user friendly and so transposing all of t-sql's language concepts into a graphical paradigm is far too complex for both the project team and the end user.
What research or products, open-source or otherwise, exist around satisfying this of business need? I'm aware of general Business Analytic tools but this is more specific and I'm trying to understand the problem domain better rather than trying to reverse engineer it from vendor marketing materials.
I assume the research would be in the form of a some encoding of the schema that specifies which joins and tables are allowed, which fields are available, then then a method for allowing the user to select one particular valid combination among the possible many, generate the query, and display the results.
Brainstorming - feature support in order of complexity: SELECT, WHERE filters, FULL JOIN, LEFT JOIN, sorting, paging, grouping, aggregation, HAVING filter.
My backup plan is to just dumb it down to pre-written SQL Views (with JOINs built-in) with the ability to display available columns with custom row-wise filtering. Paging and sorting is doable. By itself, this doesn't allow for grouping, aggregate functions, HAVING filters, or other inter-row analysis.
As a follow-up to #Dems post (comment box wasn't bit enough :) )..
Agreed on most counts.. If your data is mostly analytic, then you might want to look into a tool like PowerPivot. In this case, you can write a general query then allow the users to derive reports based on the result set in a familiar tool (Excel).
At the core of every ad hoc reporting engine, you will find a few common themes:
Metadata
There will be some way of describing the schema such that the model may be easily consumed by the user. Sql Server Reporting Services (SSRS) requires you to build a metadata model in order to use the report builder. When using PowerPivot, you can alias column names to make them more readable, but in the end, you are simply providing a flat dataset and allowing the user to build the joins/relationships.
Query Builder
Once the metadata has been manipulated by the user, an intermediary system must be in place to convert the conceptual report into an actual query. Many tools are measured based on the complexity of the Sql that they produce as this can greatly affect performance. One way to get around this is to create views that the reporting engine may build queries against. One of the best open source examples of this that I have seen is the engine that backs Hibernate/NHibernate (look into how the various Dialects are used when building queries).
Rendering Engine
In my experience building a rendering engine is not a road you want to go down. There are many device-specific concerns as well as look & feel problems (i.e. how do you plan on representing cascading joins/relationships?). Every rendering engine has it's own quirks (PowerPivot uses Excel, SSRS has a service that builds the raw result and return it to the consuming application) that must be accounted for, so be careful how you choose.
Earlier I mentioned that I agreed on most counts. I would not recommend encouraging your users to learn Sql or allowing them to pass-through Sql to the underlying data-store. This opens the door to malicious code being written and can become a security nightmare. Not to mention that most business users think in terms of flat tables, not hierarchical sets.
Figure out what your users are comfortable with and try to fit your solution to that domain. I have often found that for sophisticated business users something like PowerPivot is perfect. For more day-to-day end users, having "canned" reports that might be modified by the end user via a simple user interface that allows them to modify restrictions/groupings/sorting is more useful.
There are many options out there, but the best of them cost money.
I really like QlikView as an easy to use report designed for semi-technical people. If your user base is more technically minded it may be a bit restrictive, but if your user base have no logical thought capabilities, it's too complicated. That's the biggest trap I see you falling in to...
- No, I want more than that!
- No, that's too complicated for me!
- At the same time...
If you were to build your own tool-set internally, you'd probably be best sticking with OLAP cubes. Let people slice and dice the data as they like, but with all the relationships pre-defined. Do it right and you can just point an Excel Pivot Table at the OLAP Cube and let them play...
The next up, as Bobby D says, could be SQL Server Reporting Services, or something similar.
But if your users end up wanting absolute flexibility, the tool they need is SQL itself. Unfortunately, all tools follow the same trend: The more flexible and powerful, the more time you need to spend learning/training.
I've got to admit that I'm not an expert on SAP R/3 programming, so this is more of a basic question on that matter.
Is there any way to get a list of accessible RFC modules and/or tables on a SAP system?
On many examples on the internet I've found one RFC module that seems to be available on every SAP system ("SD_RFC_CUSTOMER_GET") and I wonder if there are any more of these standard RFC modules that I can use. I can easily query the SAP system for all SAP-Queries that are available but I just cannot find a way to do this with RFC modules or tables. I cannot even find a list of these RFC modules after searching on Google for hours...
so am I missing something or is this just impossible?
Thanks for any help in advance.
For "official" RFC modules, use the transaction BAPI. These modules are well-documented and released for customer and partner use - meaning that you'll get support if something goes wrong. For everything else, you're free to use whatever you find, but don't bother to ask SAP for support, they won't help you.
If you want to look for stuff inside the SAP system, use transaction SE80 (choose "Repository Infosystem" in the left section). Note that on many selection screens, you can expand the parameters. This will show a parameter to search for RFC modules only.
As for tables - you might be interested in the RPY_* function modules as well as the (in)famous RFC_READ_TABLE...
with transaction SE84 you can query for RFC modules/programs/... by their name, description and so on.
for database tables you can for example use the transaction SE11.
One trick I found quick useful is to search for functions with sorting on the number of times the function is used in the SAP code. Functions used more times are more likely to be more reusable and also more likely to have less bugs. Check this post on how to search that way: http://apolemia.blogspot.com/2010/02/finding-functions-in-sap.html
RFC_GROUP_SEARCH to search available RFC groups.
RFC_FUNCTION_SEARCH to search available RFCs, with optional RFC group filter.
SWO_QUERY_API_METHODS to query BAPI business objects and associated methods.
Try them out in SAP Logon GUI using SE37 Function Builder, assuming you will next want to program them using the SAP .NET Connector. Note that the Function Builder itself has RFC function search screens built-in.
It may not be a pure programming question but I'm looking for information about enCapsa. Do you know what it is, have you ever used it? I'm reading some papers about it but I can't really see how it works and what it can be used for in an IT company (and this is what i am supposed to find out).
Basically enCapsa is a shared data storage system, focused on providing a way for storing any kind of data (even from etherogeneous data sources such as different designed db tables) and consequently obtain it through a sort of human friendly queries, just like on a search engine. They offer the possibility to upload data from everywhere (it's CSV based) and later download to use wherever you need it.
Usages are many, consider it's a centralized DB accessible through web and they say it meets high security standard.
A usefull way to employ this service is to have data stored in there without the need to keep them synchronized across company computers.
At my work everyone has sql snippets that they use to answer questions. Some are specific to a customer, while some are generic for a given database. I want to consolidate those queries into a library/repository that can be accessed by anyone on the team. The requirements would be:
Accessible
Searchable
Tagable (multiple tags allowed per sql)
Exportable (create a document containing all queries with certain tags)
I'm interested in what has been found to work in other team environments.
You could use a wiki.
You could get started with something as simple as Tiddly wiki.
A wiki is a great approach.
For database specific or project specific snippets it's also very useful to have links to where a similar construct occurs in the code. We use trac's wiki which gives nice integration with out SVN for this.
Rather than pasting SQL snippets, I would consider graduating to an ORM (Object-Relational Mapper) or some other library to make representing and manipulating the data easier. It provides a layer of encapsulation to guard against schema changes and a layer of abstraction so you can think of the data in terms of business logic (ie. a user) rather than a collection of tables (ie. a user table, a password table, an access table...).
In Perl this would be something like DBIx::Class.
Another approach you may want to look at is creating views in your database. 'select * from some_view' can hide quite a bit of SQL. You'll still want to use a wiki to document them, but if its a view you don't have to worry about people keeping outdated copies.