Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support entity type as parameter/return type for function/action import #707

Closed
1 of 2 tasks
jjtang1985 opened this issue Nov 12, 2020 · 10 comments
Closed
1 of 2 tasks
Assignees
Labels
feature request Requests for new functionality

Comments

@jjtang1985
Copy link
Contributor

jjtang1985 commented Nov 12, 2020

When using the generator with an SAP Business One Edmx file, the following error message is shown:

Tries to get a action/function parameter with type SAPB1.Document which is not a Edm type.

because currently the sdk does not support entity type as parameter for function/action import.

AC:

  • The generator should not fail when detecting unsupported function/action import. Ignoring such cases might be a quick win.
  • Support entity type as parameter/return type for function/action import

cloud sdk version: 1.31.1-22d161e0.22
odata version: v4

@marikaner
Copy link
Contributor

@jjtang1985
Copy link
Contributor Author

It turns out that all the function imports with entity parameters occurred in the SAP Business One metadata file are bound function. Therefore, the feature request implicitly goes to the direction that contains the bound function/action.
@artemkovalyov

@marikaner
Copy link
Contributor

As there was no further activity on this, I will close it for now. We will keep it in our backlog with low priority.

@marikaner
Copy link
Contributor

BTW, @thekevinbrown, did you try running the generator after some of the fixes we provided? Entity types as return types are now supported, but adding support for parameters would result in a bigger deal, we plan to postpone this until there is bigger demand. However, generation should not fail for those anymore.

@thekevinbrown
Copy link

No, I ended up just hand coding entity files and a client to match our needed schema, as it had to be done quickly.

@marikaner
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for the info!

@andretrump
Copy link

andretrump commented Oct 7, 2024

Entity types as return types are now supported, but adding support for parameters would result in a bigger deal, we plan to postpone this until there is bigger demand. However, generation should not fail for those anymore.

Hi colleagues, I am currently working in a customer project where we require this feature since we need to call bound actions quite frequently. Until now we called them through the HTTP client as a workaround but now we also need to bundle them in batch requests which is quite cumbersome without a high-level API. Are there any plans to implement this?

@BovineJoni
Copy link

Hi, yes it would be really nice if bound actions/functions would be supported by the sdk generator.
Actually I don't understand that SAP is waiting for a bigger demand. Right now all bound actions/functions of OData APIs (which are quite a lot) cannot get used by the recommended procedure (which is the use of the SDK generator). This applies to Node.js. I don't know if the Java implementation can handle this - but customers either have one of the two, not both. To me this sounds more like an incompleteness or unfinished work, than some special features needed by too few people. Please put it on the roadmap asap.

@jjtang1985
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi all,

Thanks for your comments.

Until now we called them through the HTTP client as a workaround but now we also need to bundle them in batch requests which is quite cumbersome without a high-level API. Are there any plans to implement this?

Using the HTTP client is the recommended workaround, which should work but I agree, it makes the consumption more complicated.

To make it more transparent, the current priority of the SAP Cloud SDK is to support AI use cases. (new repository)
From the current plan, I guess we will not work on this for the next 6 months.

Thank you very much for your understanding.
Best regards,
Junjie

@kulliax
Copy link

kulliax commented Dec 5, 2024

Hi @jjtang1985 even though my origin issue #4543 is an unbound operation, we keep coming across this post in the hope that this feature will be implemented soon.

If I read the SCN correctly, it was already in development in january 21

This is a known issue and we're working on it now. I assume we should be able to handle this soon.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature request Requests for new functionality
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants