What to use for your migration of message mappings from SAP PI/PO to Cloud Integration?
That's a great question and there are two options for handling linked Function Libraries (FL):
Use the new FL object in Cloud Integration
Convert the FL into Groovy and use it in the mapping
Important note: For each FL you need to consider if it can be migrated and then perform the steps.
Figaf can handle both options depending on how they are handled.
Here is a table of the differences as of August 2023 between the functions
| Groovy | Function Lib |
Simple function | X | X |
Queue function | X | X |
Parameters | X | p |
Using Container | - | X |
All values of queue | - | p |
Missing input on a function | p | p |
Init method | - | X |
Imported archives |
| p |
Changed syntax | X |
|
Access PI data | - | - |
I would expect that all items marked with "p" will be possible to resolve by SAP for the FL object. When they will be resolved is the question. And that Figaf can resolve the missing input on a function, in a short period if requested by customer. The other items will not be possible to resolve because the Groovy functions cannot be extended.
The biggest disadvantage with Groovy is that the Groovy syntax is a bit different in some cases. For instance, a "100$" in java is seen as a string in Groovy the $ is seen as the beginning of a variable. In Figaf we escape automatically this but there are other syntax changes that can be more challenging.
When you migrate with Figaf you can select how each of your FL should be migrated.
If you change you format the message mappings should use the Overwrite the shared artifact.
For the Groovy you will see warnings about how the FL is migrated and if there are things like container that is not supported.
No matter how you handle the migration, remember to test.