SRT_MONI — Web Service Message Monitor
SRT_MONI is used to monitor asynchronous and synchronous ABAP web-service messages and inspect SOAP processing errors. It is most useful when a SOAP message fails, remains in error, or must be traced between application and web-service runtime. For reliable support work, start with the exact system, client, user and business context, then use the transaction's own status, document or log evidence before changing configuration or data.
This practitioner page covers SRT_MONI, Web Service Message Monitor. It explains the transaction's operational purpose, the evidence to capture, the data or configuration objects that matter, and the failure patterns that commonly mislead SAP support teams.
Published 19 Sept 2026· 685 words
Esta página ainda não está disponível em português.
Purpose
monitor asynchronous and synchronous ABAP web-service messages and inspect SOAP processing errors. The useful way to think about SRT_MONI is as part of an end-to-end business or technical flow, not as an isolated screen. Capture the exact organizational context, business object, user and timestamp before drawing conclusions, because those values determine which data and configuration the transaction reads.
When it is used
SRT_MONI is typically used when a SOAP message fails, remains in error, or must be traced between application and web-service runtime. It is also valuable during test cycles because it provides a repeatable way to prove what SAP processed, selected or rejected. In production, narrow the selection to the affected population first and separate diagnostic/display actions from functions that can post, retry, clear or change system state.
How to use it in practice
- Search by time, service or message ID and open a representative failure.
- Read the error category and processing log before viewing payload details.
- Correlate endpoint/security failures with SOAMANAGER, STRUST and SMICM.
- For application faults, follow the backend business error instead of retrying blindly.
- Retry only messages whose processing semantics make repetition safe.
Key data objects
These are the strongest anchors for a SRT_MONI investigation. Record the values in the incident or test evidence so another consultant can reproduce the same conclusion and distinguish master data, configuration, authorization and transaction-state problems.
- message ID — verify the exact value, organizational context and relationship to the affected document or interface.
- sender/receiver — verify the exact value, organizational context and relationship to the affected document or interface.
- processing status — verify the exact value, organizational context and relationship to the affected document or interface.
- error category — verify the exact value, organizational context and relationship to the affected document or interface.
- payload/header context — verify the exact value, organizational context and relationship to the affected document or interface.
How to prove it in the data
Use a three-part proof: first establish the source document or request and its exact keys; second show the status, accounting/interface record or runtime evidence produced by SAP; third show the corrected result using the same selection. Cross-check neighboring transactions and logs rather than relying on a single screen message. This prevents a successful retry, changed selection or unrelated master-data edit from being mistaken for the real fix.
ECC vs S/4HANA
SRT_MONI remains relevant for SOAP-based integration in S/4HANA. Many mature landscapes still run critical enterprise services alongside newer OData and API-based integrations. Availability does not automatically mean it is the preferred design for new work. On S/4HANA, pair familiar SAP GUI diagnostics with Fiori apps, Universal Journal, ODP, RAP/CDS or released APIs where those are the strategic surface for the process.
Common pitfalls and how to diagnose them
- Mass-restarting messages without correcting a systemic cause. Recheck the exact keys and chronology before changing configuration or reposting data.
- Confusing transport/security errors with application SOAP faults. Recheck the exact keys and chronology before changing configuration or reposting data.
- Sharing sensitive payloads in tickets without masking business data. Recheck the exact keys and chronology before changing configuration or reposting data.
Whose problem this is
Primary ownership normally sits with the BTP INTEGRATION team. Bring in Basis for infrastructure/runtime issues, Security for authorization evidence, and ABAP or integration developers only when the transaction evidence points to custom logic or mapping. A useful escalation includes exact keys, timestamp, expected result, actual result and checks already completed.
Related SAP objects
Reviewed pages this object connects to in the ERPClimb knowledge graph.
Source: ERPClimb — https://erpclimb.com/sap-tcodes/srt-moniERPClimb is an independent platform and is not affiliated with SAP SE. Reference pages are written and reviewed by SAP consultants for learning and troubleshooting.