[SCP1] Added Fields, Removed Fields, Updated Fields, Title, Comment and Annotations added

[Rits-SAP]

Software Component, Minimum Release and Maximum Release removed- These are not any more relevant to BC Sets.
Constants not relevant currently for the BC Set creation are removed.

Hard coded Constants replaced with our Interface Constants.
"Field Attribute" changed from field_attribute_value to field_attribute.

Scope Relevant added- This is a new feature in our BC Sets.
Added relevant annotations wherever required.
Position added- To denote the position of the sub-BC Sets in case of hierarchical BC Sets

Title and comment added or modified wherever required.

[cla-assistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[huber-nicolas]

I have one more question. Did you already deliver SCP1 to an on-premise release or is SCP1 used in abapGit or used in XCO Api? Because then we have to check whether the changes you made are compatible or not.
See also https://github.com/SAP/abap-file-formats/blob/main/docs/json.md#incompatible-file-format-changes

[Rits-SAP]

I have one more question. Did you already deliver SCP1 to an on-premise release or is SCP1 used in abapGit or used in XCO Api? Because then we have to check whether the changes you made are compatible or not. See also https://github.com/SAP/abap-file-formats/blob/main/docs/json.md#incompatible-file-format-changes

Regarding the above question:
SCP1 is used in abapGit - https://docs.abapgit.org/user-guide/reference/supported.html
You can check the above link.

Regarding XCO, integrations is not fully complete, but you can check the package S_XCO_GENERATION_SCP1

If you have further questions we can connect

[huber-nicolas]

I have one more question. Did you already deliver SCP1 to an on-premise release or is SCP1 used in abapGit or used in XCO Api? Because then we have to check whether the changes you made are compatible or not. See also https://github.com/SAP/abap-file-formats/blob/main/docs/json.md#incompatible-file-format-changes

Regarding the above question: SCP1 is used in abapGit - https://docs.abapgit.org/user-guide/reference/supported.html You can check the above link.

Regarding XCO, integrations is not fully complete, but you can check the package S_XCO_GENERATION_SCP1

If you have further questions we can connect

Together with my colleagues I analysed the situation and we checked the abapGit handler of SCP1. Since the abapGit for SCP1 is not using this Abap File Format of SCP1 we can do these changes to the AFF of SCP1 without increasing the format version.

[huber-nicolas]

I see that you have updated the if_aff_scp1_v1 in the abap system and implemented the changes which I recommended. Can you please also update this pull request so that we see the changes in github. Thanks

[Rits-SAP]

I have a query, currently we are not able to open any BC Set in YI3, is it like it will work only after the pull request is approved.

[huber-nicolas]

I have a query, currently we are not able to open any BC Set in YI3, is it like it will work only after the pull request is approved.

No the pull request approve/merge does not have any effect on the abap backend.
I have just checked in YI3, for me the SCP1 editor is working fine. Can you please recheck from you side

[Rits-SAP]

The interface should be created in the same package you want to use for the development objects for Workbench Integration.
Currently our interface and workbench integration are in different packages, what will be the consequence?

[huber-nicolas]

The interface should be created in the same package you want to use for the development objects for Workbench Integration. Currently our interface and workbench integration are in different packages, what will be the consequence?

From our side it is not mandatory that the interface is in the same package as the other objects.

[huber-nicolas]

Suggested change

	"! $maximum 10
	"! $minimum 1
	"! $maximum 10

I just saw in the schema that for integers we write "minimum": -2147483648 into the schema. This does not make sense for the field "position_in_hierarchy". Can you please add a "minimum" annotation to overrule the value of -2147483648.

[Rits-SAP]

added the $minimum annotation and updated the Files.

[huber-nicolas]

For me from AFF perspective it is ok. I just want to involve the UX colleagues to check whether the changes are also ok from UX perspective, since your AFF changes also had impact on the editor UI.