Introducing native Service Bus message publishing from Azure API Management (Preview)
We’re excited to announce a preview capability in Azure API Management (APIM) — you can now send messages directly to Azure Service Bus from your APIs using a built-in policy. This enhancement, currently in public preview, simplifies how you connect your API layer with event-driven and asynchronous systems, helping you build more scalable, resilient, and loosely coupled architectures across your enterprise. Why this matters? Modern applications increasingly rely on asynchronous communication and event-driven designs. With this new integration: Any API hosted in API Management can publish to Service Bus — no SDKs, custom code, or middleware required. Partners, clients, and IoT devices can send data through standard HTTP calls, even if they don’t support AMQP natively. You stay in full control with authentication, throttling, and logging managed centrally in API Management. Your systems scale more smoothly by decoupling front-end requests from backend processing. How it works The new send-service-bus-message policy allows API Management to forward payloads from API calls directly into Service Bus queues or topics. High-level flow A client sends a standard HTTP request to your API endpoint in API Management. The policy executes and sends the payload as a message to Service Bus. Downstream consumers such as Logic Apps, Azure Functions, or microservices process those messages asynchronously. All configurations happen in API Management — no code changes or new infrastructure are required. Getting started You can try it out in minutes: Set up a Service Bus namespace and create a queue or topic. Enable a managed identity (system-assigned or user-assigned) on your API Management instance. Grant the identity the “Service Bus data sender” role in Azure RBAC, scoped to your queue/ topic. Add the policy to your API operation: <send-service-bus-message queue-name="orders"> <payload>@(context.Request.Body.As<string>())</payload> </send-service-bus-message> Once saved, each API call publishes its payload to the Service Bus queue or topic. 📖 Learn more. Common use cases This capability makes it easy to integrate your APIs into event-driven workflows: Order processing – Queue incoming orders for fulfillment or billing. Event notifications – Trigger internal workflows across multiple applications. Telemetry ingestion – Forward IoT or mobile app data to Service Bus for analytics. Partner integrations – Offer REST-based endpoints for external systems while maintaining policy-based control. Each of these scenarios benefits from simplified integration, centralized governance, and improved reliability. Secure and governed by design The integration uses managed identities for secure communication between API Management and Service Bus — no secrets required. You can further apply enterprise-grade controls: Enforce rate limits, quotas, and authorization through APIM policies. Gain API-level logging and tracing for each message sent. Use Service Bus metrics to monitor downstream processing. Together, these tools help you maintain a consistent security posture across your APIs and messaging layer. Build modern, event-driven architectures With this feature, API Management can serve as a bridge to your event-driven backbone. Start small by queuing a single API’s workload, or extend to enterprise-wide event distribution using topics and subscriptions. You’ll reduce architectural complexity while enabling more flexible, scalable, and decoupled application patterns. Learn more: Get the full walkthrough and examples in the documentation 👉 here
Dynamic Connection Properties in Azure Logic Apps Standard
Switching Built-in Connections at Runtime The Problem Imagine your organization has a single Logic App workflow used by multiple teams. Each team has its own SFTP server, database, or service bus namespace. Traditionally, you'd need separate workflows or hardcode a single connection — neither scales well. The Solution Logic Apps Standard supports dynamic connection names for built-in (service provider) connectors. Instead of hardcoding a connection name, you can use any workflow expression — trigger inputs, previous action outputs, parameters, or conditional logic — to determine which connection to use at runtime. No designer support is available at this time — this works today via Code View. How It Works Define multiple connections in connections.json — one per team/environment/tenant Resolve the connection name dynamically using any expression Reference that expression in the connectionName field of your service provider action The runtime evaluates the expression and resolves the connection from connections.json at execution time. The Key Pattern "serviceProviderConfiguration": { "connectionName": "@<expression-that-resolves-to-connection-name>", "operationId": "listFolder", "serviceProviderId": "/serviceProviders/Sftp" } Instead of hardcoding "connectionName": "sftp", you provide an expression that evaluates to a connection key defined in connections.json. What You Can Use as the Dynamic Value Source Example Trigger body @triggerBody()?['connectionName'] Trigger header @triggerOutputs()['headers']['X-Connection-Name'] Conditional expression if(equals(triggerBody()?['team'], 'teamA'), 'sftpTeamA', 'sftpTeamB') Previous action output @outputs('Resolve_Connection') Workflow parameter @parameters('defaultConnection') Step-by-Step Example: Dynamic SFTP Connection 1. Define Connections in connections.json { "serviceProviderConnections": { "sftpTeamA": { "parameterValues": { "sshHostAddress": "@appsetting('SftpTeamA_HostAddress')", "username": "@appsetting('SftpTeamA_Username')", "password": "@appsetting('SftpTeamA_Password')", "portNumber": "@appsetting('SftpTeamA_PortNumber')", "rootDirectory": "@appsetting('SftpTeamA_RootDirectory')" }, "serviceProvider": { "id": "/serviceProviders/Sftp" }, "displayName": "SFTP - Team A" }, "sftpTeamB": { "parameterValues": { "sshHostAddress": "@appsetting('SftpTeamB_HostAddress')", "username": "@appsetting('SftpTeamB_Username')", "password": "@appsetting('SftpTeamB_Password')", "portNumber": "@appsetting('SftpTeamB_PortNumber')", "rootDirectory": "@appsetting('SftpTeamB_RootDirectory')" }, "serviceProvider": { "id": "/serviceProviders/Sftp" }, "displayName": "SFTP - Team B" } } } 2. Add App Settings In your Logic App's Configuration → Application settings, add values for each connection: Setting Example Value SftpTeamA_HostAddress storageacctA.blob.core.windows.net SftpTeamA_Username storageacctA.localuserA SftpTeamA_Password (generated password) SftpTeamA_PortNumber 22 SftpTeamA_RootDirectory /uploads SftpTeamB_HostAddress storageacctB.blob.core.windows.net SftpTeamB_Username storageacctB.localuserB SftpTeamB_Password (generated password) SftpTeamB_PortNumber 22 SftpTeamB_RootDirectory /uploads 3. Create the Workflow (Code View) { "definition": { "$schema": "https://schema.management.azure.com/providers/Microsoft.Logic/schemas/2016-06-01/workflowdefinition.json#", "actions": { "List_files_in_folder": { "type": "ServiceProvider", "inputs": { "serviceProviderConfiguration": { "connectionName": "@if(equals(triggerBody()?['team'], 'teamA'), 'sftpTeamA', 'sftpTeamB')", "operationId": "listFolder", "serviceProviderId": "/serviceProviders/Sftp" }, "parameters": { "path": "@triggerBody()?['folderPath']" } }, "runAfter": {} }, "Response": { "type": "Response", "kind": "Http", "inputs": { "statusCode": 200, "body": "@body('List_files_in_folder')" }, "runAfter": { "List_files_in_folder": ["Succeeded"] } } }, "triggers": { "When_a_HTTP_request_is_received": { "type": "Request", "kind": "Http", "inputs": { "schema": { "type": "object", "properties": { "team": { "type": "string" }, "folderPath": { "type": "string" } } } } } }, "contentVersion": "1.0.0.0" }, "kind": "Stateful" } 4. Test It Send a POST request to the workflow trigger URL: { "team": "teamA", "folderPath": "/uploads" } Change "team": "teamB" to route to the other SFTP server at runtime. Multi-Step Resolution Example For more complex logic — lookups, mappings, or multi-condition routing — resolve the connection in a prior action and reference its output: { "Resolve_Connection": { "type": "Compose", "inputs": "@if(contains(triggerBody()?['region'], 'eu'), 'sftpEurope', if(contains(triggerBody()?['region'], 'us'), 'sftpAmerica', 'sftpDefault'))", "runAfter": {} }, "Upload_File": { "type": "ServiceProvider", "inputs": { "serviceProviderConfiguration": { "connectionName": "@outputs('Resolve_Connection')", "operationId": "createFile", "serviceProviderId": "/serviceProviders/Sftp" }, "parameters": { "path": "/incoming/data.csv", "content": "@triggerBody()?['fileContent']" } }, "runAfter": { "Resolve_Connection": ["Succeeded"] } } } Applicable Connectors This pattern works with all built-in service provider connectors (type: "ServiceProvider"), including: SFTP SQL Service Bus Event Hubs Azure Blob Storage (built-in) SMTP Azure Automation And any other built-in connector Limitations Code View only — The designer does not render or edit dynamic connection names visually. Built-in connectors only — Managed API connections (type: "ApiConnection") do not support this pattern. Connection must exist — The resolved name must match a key already defined in connections.json. Connections cannot be created on-the-fly. Case-sensitive — The expression output must exactly match the connection key in connections.json. Tips Use @appsetting() references in connections.json to keep credentials out of source control Store passwords in Azure Key Vault referenced via app settings Use meaningful connection names (e.g., sftpTeamA, sqlProd, serviceBusDev) You can scale to any number of connections — just add entries to connections.json and corresponding app settings Inline expressions like @if(...) work directly in connectionName — you don't always need a separate action
Scaling Logic Apps Standard – Sustained Message Processing System
In the previous blog of this blog post series, we discussed how Logic App standard can be used to process high throughput event data at a sustained rate over long periods of time. In this blog, we will see how Logic App standard can be used to process high throughput message data that can facilitate the decoupling of applications and services. We simulate a real-life use case where messages are sent to a Service Bus queue at a sustained rate for processing, and we use a templated Logic App workflow to process the messages in real-time. The business logic in the templated workflow can be easily replaced by the customer to actions that encompass their unique processing of the relevant messaging information. To better showcase the message processing capabilities, we will discuss two scaling capabilities, one for vertical scaling (varying the performance of service plans), and another horizontal scaling (varying the number of service plan instances). Vertical scaling capabilities of the Logic App Standard with Built-In Service Bus Connector In this section, we will investigate the vertical scaling capabilities of the Logic App Service Bus connector, conducting experiments to find the maximum message throughput supported by each of the standard Logic App SKUs from WS1 to WS3. The workflow uses the Service Bus built-in trigger, so the messages are promptly picked up and are processed in the run at par with ingress rate. like the one shown below - available at our Template Gallery. Customers can replace the Business Logic and Compensation Logic to handle their business scenarios. For this investigation, we used the out-of-the-box Logic Apps Standard configuration for scaling: 1 always ready instance 20 maximum burst instances We also used the default trigger batch size of 50. Experiment Methodology For each experiment we selected one of the available SKUs (WS1, WS2, WS3), and supplied a steady influx of X messages per minute to the connected Service Bus queue in one experiment. We conduct multiple experiments for each SKU and gradually increase X until the Logic App cannot process all the messages immediately. For each experiment, we pushed enough (1 million) messages in total to the queue to ensure that each workflow reaches a steady state processing rate with its maximum scaling. Environment Configuration The experiment setup is summarized in the table below: Tests setup Single Stamp Logic App Number of workflows 1 Templated Triggers Service Bus Trigger batch size 50 Actions Service Bus, Scope, Condition, Compose Number of storage accounts 1 Prewarmed instances 1 Max scale settings 20 Message size 1 KB Service Bus queue max size 2 GB Service Bus queue message lock duration 5 minutes Service Bus queue message max delivery count 10 Experiment results We summarize the experiment results in the table below. If the default maximum scaling of 20 instances is adopted, then the throughput we measured here serves as a good reference for the upper bound of message processing powers: WS Plan Message Throughput Time to process 1M messages WS1 9000 messages/minute 120 minutes WS2 19000 messages/minute 60 minutes WS3 24000 messages/minute 50 minutes In all the experiments, the Logic App scaled out to 20 instances at steady state. 📝 Complex business logic, which requires more actions and/or longer processing times, can change those values. Findings Understand the scaling and bottlenecks In the vertical scaling experiments, we limited the maximum instance count to 20. Under this setting, we sometimes observe "dead-letter" messages being generated. With Service Bus, messages become "dead-letters" if they are not processed within the lock duration for all delivery attempts. This means that the workflow takes more than 5 minutes to complete the scope/business logic for some messages. The root cause is that the Service Bus trigger fetches messages faster than the workflow actions can process them. As we can see in the following figure, the Service Bus trigger can fetch as much as 60k messages per minute, but the workflow can only process less than 30k messages per minute. Recommendations We recommend going with the default scaling settings if your workload is well below the published message throughput and increase the maximum burst when a heavier workload is expected. Horizontal scaling capabilities of the Logic App Service Bus connector In this section, we probe into the horizontal scaling of Logic App message handling capabilities with varying instance counts. We conduct experiments on the most performant and widely used WS3 SKU. Experiment Methodology For each experiment we varied the number of pre-warmed instances and maximum burst instances and supplied a steady influx of X messages per minute to the connected Service Bus queue, gradually increase X until the Logic App cannot process all the messages immediately. We push enough (4 million) messages to the queue for each experiment to ensure that each workflow reaches a steady state processing rate. Environment configuration The experiment setup is summarized in the table below: Tests setup Multi Stamp Logic App Number of workflows 1 Templated Triggers Service Bus Trigger batch size 50 Actions Service Bus, Scope, Condition, Compose Number of storage accounts 3 Message size 1 KB Service Bus queue max size 4 GB Service Bus queue message lock duration 5 minutes WS Plan WS3 Service Bus queue message max delivery count 10 Experiment results The experiment results are summarized in the table below: Prewarmed Instances Max Burst Instances Message Throughput 1 20 24000 messages/minute 1 60 65000 messages/minute 5 60 65000 messages/minute 10 60 65000 messages/minute 10 100 85000 messages/minute In all the experiments, the Logic App scaled out to the maximum burst instance allowed at steady state. Editor's Note: The actual business logic can affect the number of machines the app scales out to. The performance might also vary based on the complexity of the workflow logic. Findings Understand the scaling and bottlenecks In the horizontal scaling experiments, when the max burst instances count is 60 or above, we no longer observe "dead-letters" being generated. In these cases, the Service Bus trigger can only fetch messages as fast as the workflow actions can process them. As we can observe in the following figure, all messages are processed immediately after they are fetched. Does the scaling speed affect the workload? As we can see below, a Standard Logic app with a prewarmed instance count of 5 can scale out to its maximum scaling of 60 under 10 minutes. The message fetching and message processing abilities scale out together, preventing the generation of “dead-letters.” Also, from the results in our horizontal scaling experiments, we see that having more prewarmed instances does not affect the steady-state throughput of the workflow. Recommendations With these two findings, we recommend keeping the minimum instance number small for cost-saving, without any impact on your peak performance. If a use case requires a higher throughput, the maximum burst instances setting can be set higher to accommodate that. For production workflows, we still recommend having at least two always-ready instances, as they would reduce any potential downtime from reboots.🚀 New in Azure API Management: MCP in v2 SKUs + external MCP-compliant server support
Your APIs are becoming tools. Your users are becoming agents. Your platform needs to adapt. Azure API Management is becoming the secure, scalable control plane for connecting agents, tools, and APIs — with governance built in. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today, we’re announcing two major updates to bring the power of the Model Context Protocol (MCP) in Azure API Management to more environments and scenarios: MCP support in v2 SKUs — now in public preview Expose existing MCP-compliant servers through API Management These features make it easier than ever to connect APIs and agents with enterprise-grade control—without rewriting your backends. Why MCP? MCP is an open protocol that enables AI agents—like GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT, and Azure OpenAI—to discover and invoke APIs as tools. It turns traditional REST APIs into structured, secure tools that agents can call during execution — powering real-time, context-aware workflows. Why API Management for MCP? Azure API Management is the single, secure control plane for exposing and governing MCP capabilities — whether from your REST APIs, Azure-hosted services, or external MCP-compliant runtimes. With built-in support for: Security using OAuth 2.1, Microsoft Entra ID, API keys, IP filtering, and rate limiting. Outbound token injection via Credential Manager with policy-based routing. Monitoring and diagnostics using Azure Monitor, Logs, and Application Insights. Discovery and reuse with Azure API Center integration. Comprehensive policy engine for request/response transformation, caching, validation, header manipulation, throttling, and more. …you get end-to-end governance for both inbound and outbound agent interactions — with no new infrastructure or code rewrites. ✅ What’s New? 1. MCP support in v2 SKUs Previously available only in classic tiers (Basic, Standard, Premium), MCP support is now in public preview for v2 SKUs — Basic v2, Standard v2, and Premium v2 — with no pre-requisites or manual enablement required. You can now: Expose any REST API as an MCP server in v2 SKUs Protect it with Microsoft Entra ID, keys or tokens Register tools in Azure API Center 2. Expose existing MCP-compliant servers (pass-through scenario) Already using tools hosted in Logic Apps, Azure Functions, LangChain or custom runtimes? Now you can govern those external tool servers by exposing them through API Management. Use API Management to: Secure external MCP servers with OAuth, rate limits, and Credential Manager Monitor and log usage with Azure Monitor and Application Insights Unify discovery with internal tools via Azure API Center 🔗 You bring the tools. API Management brings the governance. 🧭 What’s Next We’re actively expanding MCP capabilities in API Management: Tool-level access policies for granular governance Support for MCP resources and prompts to expand beyond tools 📚 Get Started 📘 Expose APIs as MCP servers 🌐 Connect external MCP servers 🔐 Secure access to MCP servers 🔎 Discover tools in API Center Summary Azure API Management is your single control plane for agents, tools and APIs — whether you're building internal copilots or connecting external toolchains. This preview unlocks more flexibility, less friction, and a secure foundation for the next wave of agent-powered applications. No new infrastructure. Secure by default. Built for the future.
Announcing Flat File Schema Generation support in Azure Logic Apps Standard
We’re excited to announce the preview of Flat File Schema Generation for Azure Logic Apps Standard. This new built-in action helps integration teams move faster by generating BizTalk compatible flat-file XSD schemas directly from sample flat-file payloads, reducing the manual effort required to model CSV, delimited, and positional files before encoding or decoding them in workflows. Why this matters Flat files continue to power enterprise mission critical integrations, from partner feeds and batch exports to finance ledgers, operational reports, and legacy system exchanges. While Azure Logic Apps already helps teams encode and decode flat files, creating the required flat-file schema has often been a separate design-time step. With Flat File Schema Generation, you can now accelerate that onboarding experience by generating a starter schema from real sample data within the workflow itself. What’s new The new Flat File Schema Generation action generates a flat-file XSD schema from sample content that you pass into the action. The generated schema includes BizTalk-compatible flat-file annotations, making it suitable for downstream Flat File Encoding and Flat File Decoding actions in Azure Logic Apps Standard workflows. Runtime schema generation: Generate schemas directly from sample flat-file payloads in the workflow. Delimited and positional support: Create schemas for common CSV, semicolon-delimited, tab-delimited, and fixed-width files. BizTalk-compatible annotations: Use generated schemas with the existing flat-file processing model familiar to BizTalk and enterprise integration teams. Flexible naming: Configure root element names, namespaces, record names, delimiters, and field positions to match your integration needs. How it works You provide a representative sample payload, specify whether the file structure is delimited or positional, and configure the relevant parsing details such as field delimiters, record delimiters, header handling, or fixed-width field positions. Once you run the workflow, the action returns the generated XSD schema as XML output, which can then be passed into subsequent flat-file operations or stored as part of your onboarding flow. Get started To try the preview, add the Flat File Schema Generation action to a Logic Apps Standard workflow, provide a sample flat-file payload, choose the record structure, and configure the field or record settings that match your format. Use the generated schema output with Flat File Decoding or Encoding in the same workflow or incorporate it into your broader onboarding process for flat-file integrations. Reference document: Encode, Decode, or Generate Schemas for Flat Files - Azure Logic Apps | Microsoft Learn. A walkthrough of generating a flat-file schema from sample data Use the following walkthrough to try the preview end to end with a simple customer order file. The same pattern can be adapted for semicolon-delimited, tab-delimited, or fixed-width positional files. Delimited sample: For this example, assume a trading partner sends a comma-separated order file with a header row and repeating order records. Sample file: OrderId,CustomerName,OrderDate,Amount,Region 10001,Contoso Retail,2026-07-01,1250.75,North 10002,Fabrikam Foods,2026-07-02,890.00,West 10003,Northwind Traders,2026-07-03,2400.50,South Configuration values Parameter Example value Record Structure Delimited Has header Yes Record delimiter newline Field delimiter , Field delimiter order Infix Escape character Double quote, if the source file uses quoted values Root element name (Advanced Parameters) Orders Record name (Advanced Parameters) Order Target namespace (Advanced Parameters) http://schemas.contoso.com/orders In the Azure portal, open your Logic Apps Standard resource and select the workflow where you want to generate the schema. Add a trigger, such as When an HTTP request is received, or use any trigger/action that provides the sample flat-file content. Add a new action and search for Flat File. Select the Flat File Schema Generation action. In the action, provide the sample flat-file content. Select the file structure type. For this example, choose Delimited. Enter the schema metadata under advanced parameters, such as the root element name, record name, and target namespace. Configure the delimiter settings, including the field delimiter and record delimiter. If the first row contains column names, enable the option to use the first row as headers. Save and run the workflow. Open the workflow run history and review the action output. The action returns a generated XSD schema with flat-file annotations. Review the generated schema, validate field names and inferred data types, and use the schema with Flat File Decoding or Flat File Encoding in your workflow. Positional sample: Fixed-width customer order file Use this example when the source flat file doesn’t use delimiters. In a positional, or fixed-width, file each field starts and ends at a known character position. The schema generation action needs those field positions so it can split each record correctly. Sample positional file: 10001CONTOSO00120260701000125075NORTH 10002FABRIKAM0120260702000089000WEST· 10003NORTHWIND120260703000240050SOUTH Note: The dot symbol in the second record represents a trailing space used for fixed-width padding. Replace it with an actual space in your real sample payload. Field position map Field Start position Length Justification Example value OrderId 1 5 Right 10001 CustomerCode 6 10 Left CONTOSO001 OrderDate 16 8 Right 20260701 Amount 24 9 Right 000125075 Region 33 5 Left NORTH Configuration values for the positional sample Parameter Example value Record Structure Positional Has Header No Record delimiter newline Field positions Use the field names, lengths, and justification values from the field position map. Root element name (Advanced Parameters) Orders Record name (Advanced Parameters) Order Target namespace (Advanced Parameters) http://schemas.contoso.com/orders/positional Step-by-step walkthrough for positional files In the Azure portal, open your Logic Apps Standard resource and select the workflow where you want to generate the schema. Add a trigger, such as When an HTTP request is received, or use an existing action that provides the fixed-width file content. Add a new action and search for Flat File. Select the Flat File Schema Generation action. Paste the positional sample payload into the sample content input. Make sure every record has the same total length. For the structure type, choose Positional. Enter the schema metadata, including root element name, record name, and target namespace. Configure the record delimiter. For this example, use newline. Add the field positions in order: OrderId length 5, CustomerCode length 10, OrderDate length 8, Amount length 9, and Region length 5. Set justification for each field. Use Right for numeric or date-like fields and Left for text fields that may contain trailing space padding. Save and run the workflow. Open the workflow run history and review the generated XSD schema output. Confirm that the field names, order, lengths, and positional annotations match the source record layout. Use the generated schema with Flat File Decoding to parse incoming fixed-width files into XML, or with Flat File Encoding to generate outbound fixed-width files. Limitations and known issues Limitation Description Type inference uses a single record. The first non-empty data record determines column types. Single record type only The action generates one repeating record structure and doesn't support heterogeneous record layouts. No nested or hierarchical records The generated schema is flat, meaning you have a root element with one repeating child record and fields. Positional boundaries aren't automatically detected. You must provide exact field lengths in field Positions. UTF-8 code page only Generated schema sets codepage="65001" and doesn't expose encoding selection. Escape-character behavior is literal. Escape handling matches literal value and skips only the next single character. recordName default If unspecified, defaults to {RootElementName}_Record. Designer justification input fieldPositions[].justification supports only Left and Right. Looking ahead This preview is another step toward making Azure Logic Apps Standard, a more complete and productive platform for enterprise integration modernization. Whether you are onboarding new partner feeds, modernizing BizTalk-style flat-file processing, or automating recurring operational files, Flat File Schema Generation helps reduce setup friction and get integration workflows moving faster.Logic Apps Agentic Workflows with SAP - Part 1: Infrastructure
When you integrate Azure Logic Apps with SAP, the “hello world” part is usually easy. The part that bites you later is data quality. In SAP-heavy flows, validation isn’t a nice-to-have — it’s what makes the downstream results meaningful. If invalid data slips through, it can get expensive fast: you may create incorrect business documents, trigger follow-up processes, and end up in a cleanup path that’s harder (and more manual) than building validation upfront. And in “all-or-nothing” transactional patterns, things get even more interesting: one bad record can force a rollback strategy, compensating actions, or a whole replay/reconciliation story you didn’t want to own. See for instance Handling Errors in SAP BAPI Transactions | Microsoft Community Hub to get an idea of the complexity in a BizTalk context. That’s the motivation for this post: a practical starter pattern that you can adapt to many data shapes and domains for validating data in a Logic Apps + SAP integration. Note: For the full set of assets used here, see the companion GitHub repository (workflows, schemas, SAP ABAP code, and sample files). 1. Introduction Scenario overview The scenario is intentionally simple, but it mirrors what shows up in real systems: A Logic App workflow sends CSV documents to an SAP endpoint. SAP forwards the payload to a second Logic App workflow that performs: rule-based validation (based on pre-defined rules) analysis/enrichment (market trends, predictions, recommendations) The workflow either: returns validated results (or validation errors) to the initiating workflow, or persists outputs for later use For illustration, I’m using fictitious retail data. The content is made up, but the mechanics are generic: the same approach works for orders, inventory, pricing, master data feeds, or any “file in → decision out” integration. You’ll see sample inputs and outputs below to keep the transformations concrete. What this post covers This walkthrough focuses on the integration building blocks that tend to matter in production: Calling SAP RFCs from Logic App workflows, and invoking Logic App workflows from SAP function modules Using the Logic Apps SAP built-in trigger Receiving and processing IDocs Returning responses and exceptions back to SAP in a structured, actionable way Data manipulation patterns in Logic Apps, including: parsing and formatting inline scripts XPath (where it fits, and where it becomes painful). Overall Implementation A high-level view of the implementation is shown below. The source workflow handles end-to-end ingestion—file intake, transformation, SAP integration, error handling, and notifications—using Azure Logic Apps. The destination workflows focus on validation and downstream processing, including AI-assisted analysis and reporting, with robust exception handling across multiple technologies. I’ll cover the AI portion in a follow-up post. Note on AI-assisted development Most of the workflow “glue” in this post—XPath, JavaScript snippets, and Logic Apps expressions—was built with help from Copilot and the AI assistant in the designer (see Get AI-assisted help for Standard workflows - Azure Logic Apps | Microsoft Learn). In my experience, this is exactly where AI assistance pays off: generating correct scaffolding quickly, then iterating based on runtime behavior. I’ve also included SAP ABAP snippets for the SAP-side counterpart. You don’t need advanced ABAP knowledge to follow along; the snippets are deliberately narrow and integration-focused. I include them because it’s hard to design robust integrations if you only understand one side of the contract. When you understand how SAP expects to receive data, how it signals errors, and where transactional boundaries actually are, you end up with cleaner workflows and fewer surprises. 2. Source Workflow This workflow is a small, end‑to‑end “sender” pipeline: it reads a CSV file from Azure Blob Storage, converts the rows into the SAP table‑of‑lines XML shape expected by an RFC, calls Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS via the SAP connector, then extracts analysis or error details from the RFC response and emails a single consolidated result. The name of the data file is a parameter of the logic app. At a high level: Input: an HTTP request (used to kick off the run) + a blob name. Processing: CSV → array of rows → XML (…) → RFC call Output: one email containing either: the analysis (success path), or a composed error summary (failure path). The diagram below summarizes the sender pipeline: HTTP trigger → Blob CSV (header included) → rows → SAP RFC → parse response → email. Two design choices are doing most of the work here. First, the workflow keeps the CSV transport contract stable by sending the file as a verbatim list of lines—including the header—wrapped into … elements under IT_CSV . Second, it treats the RFC response as the source of truth: EXCEPTIONMSG and RETURN/MESSAGE drive a single Has errors gate, which determines whether the email contains the analysis or a consolidated failure summary. Step-by-step description Phase 0 — Trigger Trigger — When_an_HTTP_request_is_received The workflow is invoked via an HTTP request trigger (stateful workflow). Phase 1 — Load and split the CSV Read file — Read_CSV_orders_from_blob Reads the CSV from container onlinestoreorders using the blob name from @parameters('DataFileName'). The name of the data file is a parameter of the logic app. Split into rows — Extract_rows Splits the blob content on \r\n, producing an array of CSV lines. Design note: Keeping the header row is useful when downstream validation or analysis wants column names, and it avoids implicit assumptions in the sender workflow. Phase 2 — Shape the RFC payload Convert CSV rows to SAP XML — Transform_CSV_to_XML Uses JavaScript to wrap each CSV row (including the header line) into the SAP line structure and XML‑escape special characters. The output is an XML fragment representing a table of ZTY_CSV_LINE rows. Phase 3 — Call SAP and extract response fields Call the RFC — [RFC]_ Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS Invokes Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS with an XML body containing … built from the transformed rows. Note that a <DEST>...</DEST> element can also be provided to override the default value in the function module definition. Extract error/status — Save_EXCEPTION_message and Save_RETURN_message Uses XPath to pull: EXCEPTIONMSG from the RFC response, and the structured RETURN / MESSAGE field. Phase 4 — Decide success vs failure and notify Initialize output buffer — Initialize_email_body Creates the EmailBody variable used by both success and failure cases. Gate — Has_errors Determines whether to treat the run as failed based on: EXCEPTIONMSG being different from "ok", or RETURN / MESSAGE being non‑empty. Send result — Send_an_email_(V2) Emails either: the extracted ANALYSIS (success), or a concatenated error summary including RETURN / MESSAGE plus message details ( MESSAGE_V1 … MESSAGE_V4 ) and EXCEPTIONMSG . Note: Because the header row is included in IT_CSV , the SAP-side parsing/validation treats the first line as column titles (or simply ignores it). The sender workflow stays “schema-agnostic” by design. Useful snippets Snippet 1 — Split the CSV into rows split(string(body('Read_CSV_orders_from_blob')?['content']), '\r\n') Tip: If your CSV has a header row you don’t want to send to SAP, switch back to: @skip(split(string(body('Read_CSV_orders_from_blob')?['content']), '\r\n'), 1) Snippet 2 — JavaScript transform: “rows → SAP table‑of‑lines XML” const lines = workflowContext.actions.Extract_rows.outputs; function xmlEscape(value) { return String(value) .replace(/&/g, "&") .replace(//g, ">") .replace(/"/g, """) .replace(/'/g, "'"); } // NOTE: we don't want to keep empty lines (which can be produced by reading the blobs) // the reason being that if the recipient uses a schema to validate the xml, // it may reject it if it does not allow empty nodes. const xml = lines .filter(line => line && line.trim() !== '') // keep only non-empty lines .map(line => `<zty_csv_line><line>${xmlEscape(line)}</line></zty_csv_line>`) .join(''); return { xml }; Snippet 3 — XPath extraction of response fields (namespace-robust) EXCEPTIONMSG: @xpath(body('[RFC]_Call_Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS')?['content'], 'string( /*[local-name()="Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSISResponse"] /*[local-name()="EXCEPTIONMSG"])') RETURN/MESSAGE: @xpath(body('[RFC]_Call_Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS')?['content'], 'string( /*[local-name()="Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSISResponse"] /*[local-name()="RETURN"] /*[local-name()="MESSAGE"])') Snippet 4 — Failure email body composition concat( 'Error message: ', outputs('Save_RETURN_message'), ', details: ', xpath(body('[RFC]_Call_Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS')?['content'], 'string(//*[local-name()=\"MESSAGE_V1\"])'), xpath(body('[RFC]_Call_Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS')?['content'], 'string(//*[local-name()=\"MESSAGE_V2\"])'), xpath(body('[RFC]_Call_Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS')?['content'], 'string(//*[local-name()=\"MESSAGE_V3\"])'), xpath(body('[RFC]_Call_Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS')?['content'], 'string(//*[local-name()=\"MESSAGE_V4\"])'), '; ', 'Exception message: ', outputs('Save_EXCEPTION_message'), '.') 3. SAP Support To make the SAP/Logic Apps boundary simple, I model the incoming CSV as a table of “raw lines” on the SAP side. The function module Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS exposes a single table parameter, IT_CSV , typed using a custom line structure. Figure: IT_CSV is a table of CSV lines ( ZTY_CSV_LINE ), with a single LINE field ( CHAR2048 ). IT_CSV uses the custom structure ZTY_CSV_LINE , which contains a single component LINE ( CHAR2048 ). This keeps the SAP interface stable: the workflow can send CSV lines without SAP having to know the schema up front, and the parsing/validation logic can evolve independently. The diagram below shows the plumbing that connects SAP to Azure Logic Apps in two common patterns: SAP sending IDocs to a workflow and SAP calling a remote-enabled endpoint via an RFC destination. I’m showing all three pieces together—the ABAP call site, the SM59 RFC destination, and the Logic Apps SAP built-in trigger—because most “it doesn’t work” problems come down to a small set of mismatched configuration values rather than workflow logic. The key takeaway is that both patterns hinge on the same contract: Program ID plus the SAP Gateway host/service. In SAP, those live in SM59 (TCP/IP destination, registered server program). In Logic Apps, the SAP built-in trigger listens using the same Program ID and gateway settings, while the trigger configuration (for example, IDoc format and degree of parallelism) controls how messages are interpreted and processed. Once these values line up, the rest of the implementation becomes “normal workflow engineering”: validation, predictable error propagation, and response shaping. Before diving into workflow internals, I make the SAP-side contract explicit. The function module interface below shows the integration boundary: CSV lines come in as IT_CSV , results come back as ANALYSIS , and status/error information is surfaced both as a human-readable EXCEPTIONMSG and as a structured RETURN ( BAPIRET2 ). I also use a dedicated exception ( SENDEXCEPTIONTOSAPSERVER ) to signal workflow-raised failures cleanly. Contract (what goes over RFC): Input: IT_CSV (CSV lines) Outputs: ANALYSIS (analysis payload), EXCEPTIONMSG (human-readable status) Return structure: RETURN ( BAPIRET2 ) for structured SAP-style success/error Custom exception: SENDEXCEPTIONTOSAPSERVER for workflow-raised failures Here is the ABAP wrapper that calls the remote implementation and normalizes the result. FUNCTION z_get_orders_analysis. *"---------------------------------------------------------------------- *" This module acts as a caller wrapper. *" Important: the remote execution is determined by DESTINATION. *" Even though the function name is the same, this is not recursion: *" the call runs in the remote RFC server registered under DESTINATION "DEST". *"---------------------------------------------------------------------- *" Contract: *" TABLES it_csv "CSV lines *" IMPORTING analysis "Result payload *" EXPORTING exceptionmsg "Human-readable status / error *" CHANGING return "BAPIRET2 return structure *" EXCEPTIONS sendexceptiontosapserver *"---------------------------------------------------------------------- CALL FUNCTION 'Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS' DESTINATION dest IMPORTING analysis = analysis TABLES it_csv = it_csv CHANGING return = return EXCEPTIONS sendexceptiontosapserver = 1 system_failure = 2 MESSAGE exceptionmsg communication_failure = 3 MESSAGE exceptionmsg OTHERS = 4. CASE sy-subrc. WHEN 0. exceptionmsg = 'ok'. "Optional: normalize success into RETURN for callers that ignore EXCEPTIONMSG IF return-type IS INITIAL. return-type = 'S'. return-message = 'OK'. ENDIF. WHEN 1. exceptionmsg = |Exception from workflow: SENDEXCEPTIONTOSAPSERVER { sy-msgv1 }{ sy-msgv2 }{ sy-msgv3 }{ sy-msgv4 }|. return-type = 'E'. return-message = exceptionmsg. WHEN 2 OR 3. "system_failure / communication_failure usually already populate exceptionmsg IF exceptionmsg IS INITIAL. exceptionmsg = |RFC system/communication failure.|. ENDIF. return-type = 'E'. return-message = exceptionmsg. WHEN OTHERS. exceptionmsg = |Error in workflow: { sy-msgv1 }{ sy-msgv2 }{ sy-msgv3 }{ sy-msgv4 }|. return-type = 'E'. return-message = exceptionmsg. ENDCASE. ENDFUNCTION. The wrapper is intentionally small: it forwards the payload to the remote implementation via the RFC destination and then normalizes the outcome into a predictable shape. The point isn’t fancy ABAP — it’s reliability. With a stable contract ( IT_CSV, ANALYSIS, RETURN, EXCEPTIONMSG ) the Logic Apps side can evolve independently while SAP callers still get consistent success/error semantics. Important: in 'CALL FUNCTION 'Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS' DESTINATION dest' the name of the called function should be the same as the name of the ABAP wrapper function module, the reason being that the SAP built-in trigger in the logic app uses the function module signature as the contract (i.e. metadata). Also note that in the provided companion artifacts, a default value was assigned to 'dest' in the function module definition. But it can also be specified in the request (DEST element). Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS . To sum up, the integration is intentionally shaped around three outputs: the raw input table ( IT_CSV ), a standardized SAP return structure ( RETURN / BAPIRET2 ), and a readable status string ( EXCEPTIONMSG ). The custom exception ( SENDEXCEPTIONTOSAPSERVER ) gives me a clean way to surface workflow failures back into SAP without burying them inside connector-specific error payloads. This is depicted in the figure below. 4. Destination Workflow The diagram below shows the destination workflow at a high level. I designed it as a staged pipeline: guard early, normalize input, validate, and then split the workload into two paths—operational handling of invalid records (notifications and optional IDoc remediation) and analysis of the validated dataset. Importantly, the SAP response is intentionally narrow: SAP receives only the final analysis (or a structured error), while validation details are delivered out-of-band via email. How to read this diagram Guardrail: Validate requested action ensures the workflow only handles the expected request. Normalize: Create CSV payload converts the inbound content into a consistent CSV representation. Validate: Data Validation Agent identifies invalid records (and produces a summary). Operational handling (invalid data): invalid rows are reported by email and may optionally be turned into IDocs (right-hand block). Analyze (valid data): Analyze data runs only on the validated dataset (invalid IDs excluded). Outputs: users receive Email analysis, while SAP receives only the analysis (or a structured error) via Respond to SAP server. Figure: Destination workflow with staged validation, optional IDoc remediation, and an SAP response . Reading the workflow top-to-bottom, the main design choice is separation of concerns. Validation is used to filter and operationalize bad records (notify humans, optionally create IDocs), while the SAP-facing response stays clean and predictable: SAP receives the final analysis for the validated dataset, or an error if the run can’t complete. This keeps the SAP contract stable even as validation rules and reporting details evolve. Step‑by‑step walkthrough Phase 0 — Entry and routing Trigger — When a message is received The workflow starts when an inbound SAP message is delivered to the Logic Apps SAP built‑in trigger. Guardrail — Validate requested action (2 cases) The workflow immediately checks whether the inbound request is the operation it expects (for example, the function/action name equals Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS ). If the action does not match: the workflow sends an exception back to SAP describing the unexpected action and terminates early (fail fast). If the action matches: processing continues. Phase 1 — Normalize input into a workflow‑friendly payload Prepare input — Create CSV payload The workflow extracts CSV lines from the inbound (XML) SAP payload and normalizes them into a consistent CSV text payload that downstream steps can process reliably. Initialize validation state — Initialize array of invalid order ids The workflow creates an empty array variable to capture order IDs that fail validation. This becomes the “validation output channel” used later for reporting, filtering, and optional remediation. Phase 2 — Validate the dataset (AI agent loop) Validate — Data Validation Agent (3 cases) This stage performs rule‑based validation using an agent pattern (backed by Azure OpenAI). Conceptually, it does three things (as shown in the diagram’s expanded block): Get validation rules: retrieves business rules from a SharePoint‑hosted validation document. The location of the validation rules file is a parameter of the logic app. Get CSV payload: loads the normalized CSV created earlier. Summarize CSV payload review: evaluates the CSV against the rules and produces structured validation outputs. Outputs produced by validation: A list of invalid order IDs The corresponding invalid CSV rows A human‑readable validation summary Note: The detailed AI prompt/agent mechanics are covered in Part 2. In Part 1, the focus is on the integration flow and how data moves. Phase 3 — Operational handling of invalid records (email + optional SAP remediation) After validation, the workflow treats invalid records as an operational concern: they are reported to humans and can optionally be routed into an SAP remediation path. This is shown in the right‑hand “Create IDocs” block. Notify — Send verification summary The workflow sends an email report (Office 365) to configured recipients containing: the validation summary the invalid order IDs the invalid CSV payload (or the subset of invalid rows) Transform — Transform CSV to XML The workflow converts the invalid CSV lines into an XML format that is suitable for SAP processing. Optional remediation — [RFC] Create all IDocs (conditional) If the workflow parameter (for example, CreateIDocs) is enabled, the workflow calls an SAP RFC (e.g., Z_CREATE_ONLINEORDER_IDOC ) to create IDocs from the transformed invalid data. Why this matters: Validation results are made visible (email) and optionally actionable (IDocs), without polluting the primary analysis response that SAP receives. Phase 4 — Analyze only the validated dataset (AI analysis) The workflow runs AI analysis on the validated dataset, explicitly excluding invalid order IDs discovered during the validation phase. The analysis prompt instructs the model to produce outputs such as trends, predictions, and recommendations. Note: The AI analysis prompt design and output shaping are covered in Part 2. Phase 5 — Post‑process the AI response and publish outputs Package results — Process analysis results (Scope) The workflow converts the AI response into a format suitable for email and for SAP consumption: Parse the OpenAI JSON response Extract the analysis content Convert markdown → HTML using custom JavaScript formatting Outputs Email analysis: sends the formatted analysis to recipients. Respond to SAP server: returns only the analysis (and errors) to SAP. Key design choice: SAP receives a clean, stable contract—analysis on success, structured error on failure. Validation details are handled out‑of‑band via email (and optionally via IDoc creation). Note: the analysis email sent by the destination workflow is there for testing purposes, to verify that the html content remains the same as it is sent back to the source workflow. Useful snippets Snippet 1 - Join each CSV line in the XML to make a CSV table: join( xpath( xml(triggerBody()?['content']), '/*[local-name()=\"Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS\"] /*[local-name()=\"IT_CSV\"] /*[local-name()=\"ZTY_CSV_LINE\"] /*[local-name()=\"LINE\"]/text()' ), '\r\n') Note: For the sake of simplicity, XPath is used here and throughout all places where XML is parsed. In the general case however, the Parse XML with schema action is the better and recommended way to strictly enforce the data contract between senders and receivers. More information about Parse XML with schema is provided in Appendix 1. Snippet 2 - Format markdown to html (simplified): const raw = workflowContext.actions.Extract_analysis.outputs; // Basic HTML escaping for safety (keeps <code> blocks clean) const escapeHtml = s => s.replace(/[&<>"]/g, c => ({'&':'&','<':'<','>':'>','"':'"'}[c])); // Normalize line endings let md = raw; // raw.replace(/\r\n/g, '\n').trim(); // Convert code blocks (``` ... ```) md = md.replace(/```([\s\S]*?)```/g, (m, p1) => `<pre><code>${escapeHtml(p1)}</code></pre>`); // Horizontal rules --- or *** md = md.replace(/(?:^|\n)---+(?:\n|$)/g, '<hr/>'); // Headings ###### to # for (let i = 6; i >= 1; i--) { const re = new RegExp(`(?:^|\\n)${'#'.repeat(i)}\\s+(.+?)\\s*(?=\\n|$)`, 'g'); md = md.replace(re, (m, p1) => `<h${i}>${p1.trim()}</h${i}>`); } // Bold and italic md = md.replace(/\*\*([^*]+)\*\*/g, '<strong>$1</strong>'); md = md.replace(/\*([^*]+)\*/g, '<em>$1</em>'); // Unordered lists (lines starting with -, *, +) md = md.replace(/(?:^|\n)([-*+]\s.+(?:\n[-*+]\s.+)*)/g, (m) => { const items = m.trim().split(/\n/).map(l => l.replace(/^[-*+]\s+/, '').trim()); return '\n<ul>' + items.map(i => `<li>${i}</li>`).join('\n') + '</ul>'; }); // Paragraphs: wrap remaining text blocks in <p>...</p> const blocks = md.split(/\n{2,}/).map(b => { if (/^<h\d>|^<ul>|^<pre>|^<hr\/>/.test(b.trim())) return b; return `<p>${b.replace(/\n/g, '<br/>')}</p>`; }); const html = blocks.join(''); return { html }; 5. Exception Handling To illustrate exception handling, we supposed that multiple workflows may listen to the same program id (by design or unexpectedly) and could therefore receive messages that were meant for others. So the first thing that happens is validate that the function name is as expected. It is shown below. In this section I show three practical ways to surface workflow failures back to SAP using the Logic Apps action “Send exception to SAP server”, and the corresponding ABAP patterns used to handle them. The core idea is the same in all three: Logic Apps raises an exception on the SAP side, SAP receives it as an RFC exception, and your ABAP wrapper converts that into something predictable (for example, a readable EXCEPTIONMSG , a populated RETURN , or both). The differences are in how much control you want over the exception identity and whether you want to leverage SAP message classes for consistent, localized messages. 5.1 Default exception This first example shows the default behavior of Send exception to SAP server. When the action runs without a custom exception name configuration, the connector raises a pre-defined exception that can be handled explicitly in ABAP. On the Logic Apps side, the action card “Send exception to SAP server” sends an Exception Error Message (for example, “Unexpected action in request: …”). On the ABAP side, the RFC call lists SENDEXCEPTIONTOSAPSERVER = 1 under EXCEPTIONS , and the code uses CASE sy-subrc to map that exception to a readable message. The key takeaway is that you get a reliable “out-of-the-box” exception path: ABAP can treat sy-subrc = 1 as the workflow‑raised failure and generate a consistent EXCEPTIONMSG . This is the simplest option and works well when you don’t need multiple exception names—just one clear “workflow failed” signal. 5.2 Message exception If you want more control than the default, you can configure the action to raise a named exception declared in your ABAP function module interface. This makes it easier to route different failure types without parsing free-form text. The picture shows Advanced parameters under the Logic Apps action, including “Exception Name” with helper text indicating it must match an exception declared in the ABAP function module definition. This option is useful when you want to distinguish workflow error categories (e.g., validation vs. routing vs. downstream failures) using exception identity, not just message text. The contract stays explicit: Logic Apps raises a named exception, and ABAP can branch on that name (or on sy-subrc mapping) with minimal ambiguity. 5.3 Message class exception The third approach uses SAP’s built-in message class mechanism so that the exception raised by the workflow can map cleanly into SAP’s message catalog ( T100 ). This is helpful when you want consistent formatting and localization aligned with standard SAP patterns. On the Logic Apps side, the action shows advanced fields including Message Class, Message Number, and an Is ABAP Message toggle, with helper text stating the message class can come from message maintenance ( SE91 ) or be custom. On the ABAP side, the code highlights an error-handling block that calls using sy-msgid , sy-msgno , and variables sy-msgv1 … sy-msgv4 , then stores the resulting text in EXCEPTIONMSG . This pattern is ideal when you want workflow exceptions to look and behave like “native” SAP messages. Instead of hard-coding strings, you rely on the message catalog and let ABAP produce a consistent final message via FORMAT_MESSAGE . The result is easier to standardize across teams and environments—especially if you already manage message classes as part of your SAP development process. Refer to Appendix 2 for further information on FORMAT_MESSAGE . 5.4 Choosing an exception strategy that SAP can act on Across these examples, the goal is consistent: treat workflow failures as first‑class outcomes in SAP, not as connector noise buried in run history. The Logic Apps action Send exception to SAP server gives you three increasingly structured ways to do that, and the “right” choice depends on how much semantics you want SAP to understand. Default exception (lowest ceremony): Use this when you just need a reliable “workflow failed” signal. The connector raises a pre-defined exception name (for example, SENDEXCEPTIONTOSAPSERVER ), and ABAP can handle it with a simple EXCEPTIONS … = 1 mapping and a sy-subrc check. This is the fastest way to make failures visible and deterministic. Named exception(s) (more routing control): Use this when you want SAP to distinguish failure types without parsing message text. By raising an exception name declared in the ABAP function module interface, you can branch cleanly in ABAP (or map to different return handling) and keep the contract explicit and maintainable. Message class + number (most SAP-native): Use this when you want errors to look and behave like standard SAP messages—consistent wording, centralized maintenance, and better alignment with SAP operational practices. In this mode, ABAP can render the final localized string using FORMAT_MESSAGE and return it as EXCEPTIONMSG (and optionally BAPIRET2 - MESSAGE ), which makes the failure both human-friendly and SAP-friendly. A practical rule of thumb: start with the default exception while you stabilize the integration, move to named exceptions when you need clearer routing semantics, and adopt message classes when you want SAP-native error governance (standardization, maintainability, and localization). Regardless of the option, the key is to end with a predictable SAP-side contract: a clear success path, and a failure path that produces a structured return and a readable message. 6. Response Handling This section shows how the destination workflow returns either a successful analysis response or a workflow exception back to SAP, and how the source (caller) workflow interprets the RFC response structure to produce a single, human‑readable outcome (an email body). The key idea is to keep the SAP-facing contract stable: SAP always returns a Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSISResponse envelope, and the caller workflow decides between success and error using just two fields: EXCEPTIONMSG and RETURN / MESSAGE . To summarize the steps: Destination workflow either: sends a normal response via Respond to SAP server, or raises an exception via Send exception to SAP server (with an error message). SAP server exposes those outcomes through the RFC wrapper: sy-subrc = 0 → success ( EXCEPTIONMSG = 'ok') sy-subrc = 1 → workflow exception ( SENDEXCEPTIONTOSAPSERVER ) sy-subrc = 2/3 → system/communication failures Source workflow calls the RFC, extracts: EXCEPTIONMSG RETURN / MESSAGE and uses an Has errors gate to choose between a success email body (analysis) or a failure email body (error summary). The figure below shows the full return path for results and failures. On the right, the destination workflow either responds normally (Respond to SAP server) or raises a workflow exception (Send exception to SAP server). SAP then maps that into the RFC outcome ( sy-subrc and message fields). On the left, the source workflow parses the RFC response structure and populates a single EmailBody variable using two cases: failure (error details) or success (analysis text). Figure: Response/exception flow Two things make this pattern easy to operationalize. First, the caller workflow does not need to understand every SAP field—only EXCEPTIONMSG and RETURN / MESSAGE are required to decide success vs failure. Second, the failure path intentionally aggregates details ( MESSAGE_V1 … MESSAGE_V4 plus the exception text) into a single readable string so errors don’t get trapped in run history. Callout: The caller workflow deliberately treats EXCEPTIONMSG != "ok" or RETURN / MESSAGE present as the single source of truth for failure, which keeps the decision logic stable even if the response schema grows. Detailed description Phase 1 — Destination workflow: choose “response” vs “exception” Respond to SAP server returns the normal response payload back to SAP. Send exception to SAP server raises a workflow failure with an Exception Error Message (the screenshot shows an example beginning with “Unexpected action in request:” and a token for Function Name). Outcome: SAP receives either a normal response or a raised exception for the RFC call. Phase 2 — SAP server: map workflow outcomes to RFC results The SAP-side wrapper code shown in the figure calls: CALL FUNCTION ' Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS ' DESTINATION DEST ... It declares exception mappings including: SENDEXCEPTIONTOSAPSERVER = 1 system_failure = 2 MESSAGE EXCEPTIONMSG communication_failure = 3 MESSAGE EXCEPTIONMSG OTHERS = 4 Then it uses CASE sy-subrc . to normalize outcomes (the figure shows WHEN 0. setting EXCEPTIONMSG = 'ok'., and WHEN 1. building a readable message for the workflow exception). Outcome: regardless of why it failed, SAP can provide a consistent set of fields back to the caller: a return structure and an exception/status message. Phase 3 — Source workflow: parse response and build one “email body” After the RFC action ([RFC] Call Z GET ORDERS ANALYSIS ) the source workflow performs: Save EXCEPTION message Extracts EXCEPTIONMSG from the response XML using XPath. Save RETURN message Extracts RETURN / MESSAGE from the response XML using XPath. Initialize email body Creates EmailBody once, then sets it in exactly one of two cases. Has errors (two cases) The condition treats the run as “error” if either: EXCEPTIONMSG is not equal to "ok", or RETURN / MESSAGE is not empty. Set email body (failure) / Set email body (success) Failure: builds a consolidated string containing RETURN / MESSAGE , message details ( MESSAGE_V1 ..V4), and EXCEPTIONMSG . Success: sets EmailBody to the ANALYSIS field extracted from the response. Outcome: the caller produces a single artifact (EmailBody) that is readable and actionable, without requiring anyone to inspect the raw RFC response. Note: the email recipient is set as a logic app parameter. 7. Destination Workflow #2: Persisting failed rows as custom IDocs In this section I zoom in on the optional “IDoc persistence” branch at the end of the destination workflow. After the workflow identifies invalid rows (via the Data Validation Agent) and emails a verification summary, it can optionally call a second SAP RFC to save the failed rows as IDocs for later processing. This is mainly included to showcase another common SAP integration scenario—creating/handling IDocs—and to highlight that you can combine “AI-driven validation” with traditional enterprise workflows. The deeper motivation for invoking this as part of the agent tooling is covered in Part 2; here, the goal is to show the connector pattern and the custom RFC used to create IDocs from CSV input. The figure below shows the destination workflow at two levels: a high-level overview at the top, and a zoomed view of the post-validation remediation steps at the bottom. The zoom starts from Data Validation Agent → Summarize CSV payload review and then expands the sequence that runs after Send verification summary: Transform CSV to XML followed by an SAP RFC call that creates IDocs from the failed data. The key point is that this branch is not the main “analysis response” path. It’s a practical remediation option: once invalid rows are identified and reported, the workflow can persist them into SAP using a dedicated RFC ( Z_CREATE_ONLINEORDER_IDOC ) and a simple IT_CSV payload. This keeps the end-to-end flow modular: analysis can remain focused on validated data, while failed records can be routed to SAP for follow-up processing on their own timeline. Callout: This branch exists to showcase an IDoc-oriented connector scenario. The “why this is invoked from the agent tooling” context is covered in Part 2; here the focus is the mechanics of calling Z_CREATE_ONLINEORDER_IDOC with IT_CSV and receiving ET_RETURN / ET_DOCNUMS . The screenshot shows an XML body with the RFC root element and an SAP namespace: <z_create_onlineorder_idoc xmlns="http://Microsoft.LobServices.Sap/2007/03/Rfc/"> <iv_direction>...</iv_direction> <iv_sndptr>...</iv_sndptr> <iv_sndprn>...</iv_sndprn> <iv_rcvptr>...</iv_rcvptr> <iv_rcvprn>...</iv_rcvprn> <it_csv> @{ ...Outputs... } </it_csv> <et_return></et_return> <et_docnums></et_docnums> </z_create_onlineorder_idoc> What to notice: the workflow passes invalid CSV rows in IT_CSV , and SAP returns a status table ( ET_RETURN ) and created document numbers ( ET_DOCNUMS ) for traceability. The payload includes standard-looking control fields ( IV_DIRECTION , IV_SNDPTR , IV_SNDPRN , IV_RCVPTR , IV_RCVPRN ) and the actual failed-row payload as IT_CSV . IT_CSV is populated via a Logic Apps expression (shown as @{ ...Outputs... } in the screenshot), which is the bridge between the prior transform step and the RFC call. The response side indicates table-like outputs: ET_RETURN and ET_DOCNUMS . 7.1 From CSV to IDocs I’ll cover the details of Destination workflow #2 in Part 2. In this post (Part 1), I focus on the contract and the end-to-end mechanics: what the RFC expects, what it returns, and how the created IDocs show up in the receiving workflow. Before looking at the RFC itself, it helps to understand the payload we’re building inside the IDoc. The screenshot below shows the custom segment definition used by the custom IDoc type. This segment is intentionally shaped to mirror the columns of the CSV input so the mapping stays direct and easy to reason about. Figure: Custom segment ZONLINEORDER000 (segment type ZONLINEORDER ) This segment definition is the contract anchor: it makes the CSV-to-IDoc mapping explicit and stable. Each CSV record becomes one segment instance with the same 14 business fields. That keeps the integration “boringly predictable,” which is exactly what you want when you’re persisting rejected records for later processing. The figure below shows the full loop for persisting failed rows as IDocs. The source workflow calls the custom RFC and sends the invalid CSV rows as XML. SAP converts each row into the custom segment and creates outbound IDocs. Those outbound IDocs are then received by Destination workflow #2, which processes them asynchronously (one workflow instance per IDoc) and appends results into shared storage for reporting. This pattern deliberately separates concerns: the first destination workflow identifies invalid rows and decides whether to persist them, SAP encapsulates the mechanics of IDoc creation behind a stable RFC interface, and a second destination workflow processes those IDocs asynchronously (one per IDoc), which is closer to how IDoc-driven integrations typically operate in production. Destination workflow #2 is included here to show the end-to-end contract and the “receipt” side of the connector scenario: Triggered by the SAP built-in trigger and checks FunctionName = IDOC_INBOUND_ASYNCHRONOUS extracts DOCNUM from the IDoc control record ( EDI_DC40 / DOCNUM ) reconstructs a CSV payload from the IDoc data segment (the fields shown match the segment definition) appends a “verification info” line to shared storage for reporting The implementation details of that workflow (including why it is invoked from the agent tooling) are covered in Part 2. 7.2 Z_CREATE_ONLINEORDER_IDOC - Contract overview The full source code for Z_CREATE_ONLINEORDER_IDOC is included in the supporting material. It’s too long to reproduce inline, so this post focuses on the contract—the part you need to call the RFC correctly and interpret its results. A quick note on authorship: most of the implementation was generated with Copilot, with manual review and fixes to resolve build errors and align the behavior with the intended integration pattern. The contract is deliberately generic because the goal was to produce an RFC that’s reusable across more than one scenario, rather than tightly coupled to a single workflow. At a high level, the RFC is designed to support: Both inbound and outbound IDoc creation It can either write IDocs to the SAP database (inbound-style persistence) or create/distribute IDocs outbound. Multiple IDoc/message/segment combinations IDoc type ( IDOCTYP ), message type ( MESTYP ), and segment type ( SEGTP ) are configurable so the same RFC can be reused. Explicit partner/port routing control Optional sender/receiver partner/port fields can be supplied when routing matters. Traceability of created artifacts The RFC returns created IDoc numbers so the caller can correlate “these failed rows” to “these IDocs.” Contract: Inputs (import parameters) IV_DIRECTION (default: 'O') — 'I' for inbound write-to-db, 'O' for outbound distribute/dispatch IV_IDOCTYP (default: ZONLINEORDERIDOC ) IV_MESTYP (default: ZONLINEORDER ) IV_SEGTP (default: ZONLINEORDER ) Optional partner/port routing fields: IV_SNDPRT , IV_SNDPRN , IV_RCVPRT , IV_RCVPRN , IV_RCVPOR Tables IT_CSV (structure ZTY_CSV_LINE ) — each row is one CSV line (the “table-of-lines” pattern) ET_RETURN (structure BAPIRET2 ) — success/warning/error messages (per-row and/or aggregate) ET_DOCNUMS (type ZTY_DOCNUM_TT ) — list of created IDoc numbers for correlation/traceability Outputs EV_DOCNUM — a convenience “primary / last created” DOCNUM value returned by the RFC 8. Concluding Remarks Part 1 established a stable SAP ↔ Logic Apps integration baseline: CSV moves end‑to‑end using explicit contracts, and failures are surfaced predictably. The source workflow reads CSV from Blob, wraps rows into the IT_CSV table‑of‑lines payload, calls Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS , and builds one outcome using two fields from the RFC response: EXCEPTIONMSG and RETURN / MESSAGE . The destination workflow gates requests, validates input, and returns only analysis (or errors) back to SAP while handling invalid rows operationally (notification + optional persistence). On the error path, we covered three concrete patterns to raise workflow failures back into SAP: the default connector exception ( SENDEXCEPTIONTOSAPSERVER ), named exceptions (explicit ABAP contract), and message‑class‑based errors (SAP‑native formatting via FORMAT_MESSAGE ). On the remediation side, we added a realistic enterprise pattern: persist rejected rows as custom IDocs via Z_CREATE_ONLINEORDER_IDOC ( IT_CSV in, ET_RETURN + ET_DOCNUMS out), using the custom segment ZONLINEORDER000 as the schema anchor and enabling downstream receipt in Destination workflow #2 (one run per IDoc, correlated via DOCNUM ). Part 2 is separate because it tackles a different problem: the AI layer. With contracts and error semantics now fixed, Part 2 can focus on the agent/tooling details that tend to iterate—rule retrieval, structured validation outputs, prompt constraints, token/history controls, and how the analysis output is generated and shaped—without muddying the transport story. Appendix 1: Parse XML with schema In this section I consider the CSV payload creation as an example, but parsing XML with schema applies in every place where we get an XML input to process, such as when receiving SAP responses, exceptions, or request/responses from other RFCs. Strong contract The Create_CSV_payload step in the shown implementation uses an xpath() + join() expression to extract LINE values from the incoming XML: join( xpath( xml(triggerBody()?['content']), '/*[local-name()="Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS"] /*[local-name()="IT_CSV"] /*[local-name()="ZTY_CSV_LINE"] /*[local-name()="LINE"]/text()' ), '\r\n' ) That approach works, but it’s essentially a “weak contract”: it assumes the message shape stays stable and that your XPath continues to match. By contrast, the Parse XML with schema action turns the XML payload into structured data based on an XSD, which gives you a “strong contract” and enables downstream steps to bind to known fields instead of re-parsing XML strings. The figure below compares two equivalent ways to build the CSV payload from the RFC input. On the left is the direct xpath() compose (labeled “weak contract”). On the right is the schema-based approach (labeled “strong contract”), where the workflow parses the request first and then builds the CSV payload by iterating over typed rows. What’s visible in the diagram is the key tradeoff: XPath compose path (left): the workflow creates the CSV payload directly using join(xpath(...), '\r\n') , with the XPath written using local-name() selectors. This is fast to prototype, but the contract is implicit—your workflow “trusts” the XML shape and your XPath accuracy. Parse XML with schema path (right): the workflow inserts a Parse XML with schema step (“ Parse Z GET ORDERS ANALYSIS request ”), initializes variables, loops For each CSV row, and Appends to CSV payload, then performs join(variables('CSVPayload'), '\r\n') . Here, the contract is explicit—your XSD defines what IT_CSV and LINE mean, and downstream steps bind to those fields rather than re-parsing XML. A good rule of thumb is: XPath is great for lightweight extraction, while Parse XML with schema is better when you want contract enforcement and long-term maintainability, especially in enterprise integration / BizTalk migration scenarios where schemas are already part of the integration culture. Implementation details The next figure shows the concrete configuration for Parse XML with schema and how its outputs flow into the “For each CSV row” loop. This is the “strong contract” version of the earlier XPath compose. This screenshot highlights three practical implementation details: The Parse action is schema-backed. In the Parameters pane, the action uses: Content: the incoming XML Response Schema source: LogicApp Schema name: Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS The code view snippet shows the same idea: type: "XmlParse" with content: " @triggerBody()?['content'] " and schema: { source: "LogicApp", name: "Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS.xsd" }. The parsed output becomes typed “dynamic content.” The loop input is shown as “ JSON Schema for element 'Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS: IT_CSV' ”. This is the key benefit: you are no longer scraping strings—you are iterating over a structured collection that was produced by schema-based parsing. The LINE extraction becomes trivial and readable. The “Append to CSV payload” step appends @item()?['LINE'] to the CSVpayload variable (as shown in the code snippet). Then the final Create CSV payload becomes a simple join(variables('CSVPayload'), '\r\n') . This is exactly the kind of “workflow readability” benefit you get once XML parsing is schema-backed. Schema generation The Parse action requires XSD schemas, which can be stored in the Logic App (or via a linked Integration Account). The final figure shows a few practical ways to obtain and manage those XSDs: Generate Schema (SAP connector): a “Generate Schema” action with Operation Type = RFC and an RFC Name field, which is a practical way to bootstrap schema artifacts when you already know the RFC you’re calling. Run Diagnostics / Fetch RFC Metadata: a “Run Diagnostics” action showing Operation type = Fetch RFC Metadata and RFC Name, which is useful to confirm the shape of the RFC interface and reconcile it with your XSD/contract. If you don’t want to rely solely on connector-side schema generation, there are also classic “developer tools” approaches: Infer XSD from a sample XML using .NET’s XmlSchemaInference (good for quick starting points). Generate XSD from an XML instance using xsd.exe (handy when you already have representative sample payloads) or by asking your favorite AI prompt. When to choose XPath vs Parse XML with schema (practical guidance) Generally speaking, choose XPath when… You need a quick extraction and you’re comfortable maintaining a single XPath. You don’t want to manage schema artifacts yet (early prototypes). Choose Parse XML with schema when… You want a stronger, explicit contract (XSD defines what the payload is). You want the designer to expose structured outputs (“JSON Schema for element …”) so downstream steps are readable and less brittle. You expect the message shape to evolve over time and prefer schema-driven changes over XPath surgery. Appendix 2: Using FORMAT_MESSAGE to produce SAP‑native error text When propagating failures from Logic Apps back into SAP (for example via Send exception to SAP server), I want the SAP side to produce a predictable, human‑readable message without forcing callers to parse connector‑specific payloads. ABAP’s FORMAT_MESSAGE is ideal for this because it converts SAP’s message context—message class, message number, and up to four variables—into the final message text that SAP would normally display, but without raising a UI message. What FORMAT_MESSAGE does FORMAT_MESSAGE formats a message defined in SAP’s message catalog ( T100 / maintained via SE91 ) using the values in sy-msgid , sy-msgno , and sy-msgv1 … sy-msgv4 . Conceptually, it answers the question: “Given message class + number + variables, what is the rendered message string?” This is particularly useful after an RFC call fails, where ABAP may have message context available even if the exception itself is not a clean string. Why this matters in an RFC wrapper In the message class–based exception configuration, the workflow can provide message metadata (class/number/type) so that SAP can behave “natively”: ABAP receives a failure ( sy-subrc <> 0), formats the message using FORMAT_MESSAGE , and returns the final text in a field like EXCEPTIONMSG (and/or in BAPIRET2 - MESSAGE ). The result is: consistent wording across systems and environments easier localization (SAP selects language-dependent text) separation of concerns: code supplies variables; message content lives in message maintenance A robust pattern After the RFC call, I use this order of precedence: Use any explicit text already provided (for example via system_failure … MESSAGE exceptionmsg), because it’s already formatted. If that’s empty but SAP message context exists ( sy-msgid / sy-msgno ), call FORMAT_MESSAGE to produce the final string. If neither is available, fall back to a generic message that includes sy-subrc . Here is a compact version of that pattern: DATA: lv_text TYPE string. CALL FUNCTION 'Z_GET_ORDERS_ANALYSIS' DESTINATION dest IMPORTING analysis = analysis TABLES it_csv = it_csv CHANGING return = return EXCEPTIONS sendexceptiontosapserver = 1 system_failure = 2 MESSAGE exceptionmsg communication_failure = 3 MESSAGE exceptionmsg OTHERS = 4. IF sy-subrc <> 0. "Prefer explicit message text if it already exists IF exceptionmsg IS INITIAL. "Otherwise format SAP message context into a string IF sy-msgid IS NOT INITIAL AND sy-msgno IS NOT INITIAL. CALL FUNCTION 'FORMAT_MESSAGE' EXPORTING id = sy-msgid no = sy-msgno v1 = sy-msgv1 v2 = sy-msgv2 v3 = sy-msgv3 v4 = sy-msgv4 IMPORTING msg = lv_text. exceptionmsg = lv_text. ELSE. exceptionmsg = |RFC failed (sy-subrc={ sy-subrc }).|. ENDIF. ENDIF. "Optionally normalize into BAPIRET2 for structured consumption return-type = 'E'. return-message = exceptionmsg. ENDIF. Common gotchas FORMAT_MESSAGE only helps if sy-msgid and sy-msgno are set. If the failure did not originate from an SAP message (or message mapping is disabled), these fields may be empty—so keep a fallback. Message numbers are typically 3-digit strings (e.g., 001, 012), matching how messages are stored in the catalog. FORMAT_MESSAGE formats text; it does not raise or display a message. That makes it safe to use in RFC wrappers and background processing. Bottom line: FORMAT_MESSAGE is a simple tool that helps workflow‑originated failures “land” in SAP as clean, SAP‑native messages—especially when using message classes to standardize and localize error text. References Logic Apps Agentic Workflows with SAP - Part 2: AI Agents Handling Errors in SAP BAPI Transactions | Microsoft Community Hub Access SAP from workflows | Microsoft Learn Create common SAP workflows | Microsoft Learn Generate Schemas for SAP Artifacts via Workflows | Microsoft Learn Parse XML using Schemas in Standard workflows - Azure Logic Apps | Microsoft Learn Announcing XML Parse and Compose for Azure Logic Apps GA Exception Handling | ABAP Keyword Documentation Handling and Propagating Exceptions - ABAP Keyword Documentation SAP .NET Connector 3.1 Overview SAP .NET Connector 3.1 Programming Guide All supporting content for this post may be found in the companion GitHub repository.🎉 Announcing General Availability of AI & RAG Connectors in Logic Apps (Standard)
We’re excited to share that a comprehensive set of AI and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) capabilities is now Generally Available in Azure Logic Apps (Standard). This release brings native support for document processing, semantic retrieval, embeddings, and grounded reasoning directly into the Logic Apps workflow engine. 🔌 Available AI Connectors in Logic Apps Standard Logic Apps (Standard) had previously previewed four AI-focused connectors that open the door for a new generation of intelligent automation across the enterprise. Whether you're processing large volumes of documents, enriching operational data with intelligence, or enabling employees to interact with systems using natural language, these connectors provide the foundation for building solutions that are smarter, faster, and more adaptable to business needs. These are now in GA. They allow teams to move from routine workflow automation to AI-assisted decisioning, contextual responses, and multi-step orchestration that reflects real business intent. Below is the full set of built-in connectors and their actions as they appear in the designer. 1. Azure OpenAI Actions Get an embedding Get chat completions Get chat completions using Prompt Template Get completion Get multiple chat completions Get multiple embeddings What this unlocks Bring natural language reasoning and structured AI responses directly into workflows. Common scenarios include guided decisioning, user-facing assistants, classification and routing, or preparing embeddings for semantic search and RAG workflows. 2. Azure AI Search Actions Delete a document Delete multiple documents Get agentic retrieval output (Preview) Index a document Index multiple documents Merge document Search vectors Search vectors with natural language What this unlocks Add vector, hybrid semantic, and natural language search directly to workflow logic. Ideal for retrieving relevant content from enterprise data, powering search-driven workflows, and grounding AI responses with context from your own documents. 3. Azure AI Document Intelligence Action Analyze document What this unlocks Document Intelligence serves as the entry point for document-heavy scenarios. It extracts structured information from PDFs, images, and forms, allowing workflows to validate documents, trigger downstream processes, or feed high-quality data into search and embeddings pipelines. 4. AI Operations Actions Chunk text with metadata Parse document with metadata What this unlocks Transform unstructured files into enriched, structured content. Enables token-aware chunking, page-level metadata, and clean preparation of content for embeddings and semantic search at scale. 🤖 Advanced AI & Agentic Workflows with AgentLoop Logic Apps (Standard) also supports AgentLoop (also Generally Available), allowing AI models to use workflow actions as tools and iterate until the task is complete. Combined with chunking, embeddings, and natural language search, this opens the door to advanced agentic scenarios such as document intelligence agents, RAG-based assistants, and iterative evaluators. Conclusion With these capabilities now built into Logic Apps Standard, teams can bring AI directly into their integration workflows without additional infrastructure or complexity. Whether you’re streamlining document-heavy processes, enabling richer search experiences, or exploring more advanced agentic patterns, these capabilities provide a strong foundation to start building today.
