Everything in UI5

There is nothing to run: it is published for a generator or a script to call, not for a developer to invoke in a project, and it declares Node.js 22 or later.

It reads documentation, never a system: nothing in it opens a package.json, a CDS model or an ABAP client, so a question about what your own project does has to be answered elsewhere. The offline half is only as fresh as the submodules the last build pinned, and the index answers where something is written down rather than which of two packages fits a task.

No license Neither the package manifest nor the repository tree declares a licence.

Functional boundary The data is illustrative: availability is binary and backup capacity unlimited, and the model carries no inventory; nothing in it is forecast or priced. The recall half runs only against classic ABAP, because its openCypher trace goes through ADBC, which is not released for ABAP Cloud, and it expects an SSH tunnel to the A4H system it was built against. A plain `npm start` passes no model key, so the agent cannot be used on a server started that way.

The page and the [abap2UI5](artifact:abap2ui5-abap2ui5) service have to share an origin: an `endpoint` that resolves to another origin is refused, and abap2UI5 rejects a POST whose `Origin` names another host. A host that routes by the URL hash, such as a Fiori elements app or an app with a UI5 router, needs abap2UI5 1.146.0 or later, because 1.145.0 clears the host's hash after every roundtrip. One frontend per page: the first control that starts decides which endpoint the frontend comes from.

Not in a project whose dependencies must all carry an open-source licence: KAEV is proprietary software, its licence page states that downloading or viewing the npm package does not by itself grant permission to use, copy, modify, redistribute, sublicense, sell, host or create derivative works, and the LICENSE file shipped with the package carries the controlling terms. Not as the last word on whether a UI5 application is secure: its rule reference states that a heuristic finding is not proof of a vulnerability, and its documentation puts professional security review beside it rather than under it.

Lowercase HTML tags such as `<div>` typecheck but throw: the default renderer constructs UI5 controls, and the HTML-aware renderer plugin is described as planned. `withScope` restores the previous scope on a synchronous return only, so an `await` inside its callback leaks the scope on runtimes without `AsyncLocalStorage`. A view that has to stay adaptable through UI5 flexibility has no path here yet: the project's [Devtoberfest session](content:devtoberfest-2026-ui5-views-type-safe-tsx) states that flexibility support is not built in yet.

It shows the wiring and a converted view pair, not the runtime's API surface; the directives, the plugin SPI and the binding forms are demonstrated in [@ui5-community/jsx-runtime-showcase](artifact:ui5-community-jsx-runtime-showcase) instead.

Its views are not a template for application code: every showcase view overrides `getController()` to return itself so a sample stays readable in one file, and the gotchas page says not to ship that in production, where a view keeps a separate `*.controller.ts`. Routing from a sample, an `ODataModel` v2 or v4, `sap.ui.mdc.Table`, forms and custom control authoring in TSX are absent by decision and documented as deferred.

It reads a UI5 project and the framework's own documentation, not a running system or a backend: a question about the service behind the app is answered somewhere else. Node.js v20.17 or v22.9 and above.

Not where the UI library itself is expected to bind data: the documentation leaves binding a component's content and events to the host framework. Not from a CDN script tag: the project publishes none, so it assumes a build step.

Knowledge about theming, not a theme build: nothing here compiles a theme or deploys one, and it says nothing about a custom control's own parameters.

Two skills, narrowly scoped: nothing here scaffolds an application or answers what a component's API is — that is [@ui5/webcomponents-mcp-server](artifact:ui5-webcomponents-mcp-server), which reads the same library's documentation.

No license Neither the package manifest nor the repository tree declares a licence.

Functional boundary It reports what the change log says, not what your application uses, so it cannot tell you which of the listed changes touches your code. The repository carries no licence file, which leaves the code itself with no grant attached even though the hosted app is open to use.

Guidance, not access: these are instructions handed to an agent, and what the agent can then read of your project comes from [@ui5/mcp-server](artifact:ui5-mcp-server) or the editor. A modernisation workflow that runs autonomously across a codebase is also a thing to point at a branch rather than at main.

Where the login cannot be completed by configuration. Its authentication page states that multi-factor authentication is not supported, because a media break between browser and phone cannot be managed out of the box.

Neither the package manifest nor the repository tree declares a licence.

Not for views built from controls outside the portable profile: sap.ui.table, sap.f, sap.uxap, sap.ui.comp and z2ui5.cc custom controls render as a visible unsupported-control box and are listed in the diagnostics, and `CONTROL_BY_ID` and `BINDING_CALL` stay unsupported. Nine frontend actions the profile allows, `DOWNLOAD_B64_FILE` and `SYSTEM_LOGOUT` among them, are skipped and reported rather than run, and formatters other than the profile's `Formatter.Date*` render a placeholder.

The class has to be moved by hand: an abapGit pull of the exported ZIP, or a paste into ADT or SE24. The palette is held to the 121 controls of UI5 1.71, and a control inserted by its class name instead comes from whatever UI5 the canvas has loaded, with nothing checking it against 1.71 - *Checks* reports that. An app class that builds no view, or more than one, is refused.

Neither suite has been run against an ABAP system: the reference backends are the framework transpiled to Node and cap2UI5 on CAP, so what a check does on a real system is open. The portable profile is a subset of 61 controls, filled from a census of 247 core apps of which 64.8 % run unchanged, so an app outside it renders placeholders in the terminal and Adaptive Cards renderers.

The 221 ports under `src/02` need a UI5 runtime newer than 1.71: they install and activate on any release, and on an older UI5 the newer control does not render. The `src/03` collection is hand-written for SAPUI5-only controls and needs a SAPUI5 bootstrap. There are no per-library branches, so pulling the whole repository is the one way in and the activation takes a few minutes.

Needs Standard ABAP 7.50 or higher, and an abap2UI5 whose frontend reserves the resourceRoot `z2ui5_cci`: a frontend predating that rename reserves `z2ui5ccc` and cannot resolve the controls. Frontend artefacts only one company needs, such as an in-house reuse library, a corporate icon font or company CSS, are what [abap2UI5-addons/custom-controls-customer](https://github.com/abap2UI5-addons/custom-controls-customer) is for, the same mechanism under the second reserved root `z2ui5_ccc`. ExportSpreadsheet needs SAPUI5: under OpenUI5 `sap.ui.export` is missing and the button renders disabled.

There is nothing here for ABAP for Cloud: the requirements name Standard ABAP releases only, and a CDS/SADL based OData service for `ABAP for Cloud` compatibility stands under Limitations & Todo.

Not a system to run a business application on: there is no business application in it, and what it implements of the language, the dictionary and Gateway is a stated subset of each. It is a clean-room reimplementation of the `/IWBEP/` interfaces that bundles no SAP source and no standard DDIC, so a service that reads standard objects has nothing to read, and `ANORMALIES.md` records every place the runtime differs from SAP before any workaround is written.

Its README calls it early-stage — the core workflows run end-to-end against real systems and packaging, documentation and polish are stated as still evolving. A Rust binary rather than an npm install, so the platform build matters.

GPL-3.0, which is a licence to read before vendoring any of it into something you ship. Forty plugins is also a lot of always-available surface — the ledger is there because breadth and verification pull in opposite directions, and it does not resolve that so much as report it.

A team that does not keep one long-lived branch per environment has no environment branches for it to compare feature branches against. What it reports is the merge state of branches in Git, so it says nothing about whether a merged change has been built or deployed to the environment.