Update: When is an error not an error?

[Michael Pokraka]

Hi Phil,
Yes, I did feel a bit silly one I found out :-)  Normally I do work
with a WF_ADMIN position/job, but in this case it was a developer on
the other side of the globe who used his own userid just so as not to
interfere with our (European) inboxes whilst he was developing - a
perfectly valid reason and good intention...
 
It's just one of those things that demonstrates the breadth of 'bits and
pieces' involved in workflow which keeps me interested :-)
 
Cheers
Mike
 
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 03:49:07AM +0100, Soady, Phil wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> since you know a lot about workflow, I didn't even bother bringing this one up. I thought you have checked the admin field.
> Made me laugh.
>
> When you get multiple developers in workflow, just create a position
> and assign their user ids to the position. You can put this position in as the administrator.
>
> Makes it less of a fight...
> I hate seeing type US in the admin field.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Phil Soady
> Senior Consultant
> Business Technologies
> SAP Australia
> * : 0412 213 079
> * : phil.soady at sap.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Pokraka [mailto:workflow at quirky.me.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, 20 March 2003 12:41 AM
> To: SAP-WUG at mitvma.mit.edu
> Subject: Update: When is an error not an error?
>
> Hi,
> Just an update to this ... after removing someone else's ID from the WF
> admin field, I started to receive notifications when things go wrong
> (Doh!) So it kinda works. I would still prefer an error state, but I
> suppose a mailed notify will have to do for now...
>
> This was there for legitimate cause, but nevertheless serves as an
> example of the little things to watch out for with multiple developers
> across the globe :)
>
> Cheers
> Mike
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 03:24:16AM +1100, Alon Raskin wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > I am with you on this. I think this is a nasty 'feature' and I also agree that
> > this is a bug with the Workflow sub-system. if the item has gone to error then
> > so should the Workflow. I took this up with SAP on the last project and they
> > refused to admit that this was a bug. I ended up going back and forth with them
> > on this for quite some time to no avail. It even got to the point where myself
> > (and another on site SAP Consultant) debugged the Workflow code.
> >
> > I think the error is caused if an attribute that you are accesssing does not
> > exist. The property you are accessing should be returning a
> > EXIT_OBJECT_NOT_FOUND if the attribute does not exist.
> >
> > In your binding you have bound Object1.Object2.Key The expression errors
> > (sometimes) because Object2 reurns a EXIT_OBJECT_NOT_FOUND which for some
> > unknown reason errors the Task! (but not the WOrkflow).
> >
> > The way 'around' this is to do a 'EX' Condition (object Exists) on Object2
> > before calling the method (which has the problem binding). If the EX condition
> > check fails then dont call the method.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Alon Raskin
> > www.desktopworkplace.com
> >
> >
> > Quoting Michael Pokraka <workflow at quirky.me.uk>:
> >
> > > Hmm, problem is that there _is_ an exception (red light in the log), and
> > > the error happens in the binding - i.e. before any method execution.
> > > The error itself is arbitrary, what does worry me is that a  binding
> > > error can cause a WF to simply come to a silent stop whilst remaining 'in
> > > process'....
> > > Sure one can argue that the design needs to be robust enough to handle
> > > it, but when you're working at a client who already has a whole bunch of
> > > their own flows this is not always an option.
> > >
> > > By the way, what would a little report look for in this case?? Other
> > > than deadlines or trawling through the logs I can't see much of a
> > > concrete option.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the input,
> > > Cheers
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:51:41PM +0100, Becker Stephan (extern) wrote:
> > > > Hi Michael,
> > > >
> > > > Think about it what you will, but if a method does not return an explicit
> > > exception, the behaviour that you see is all you get..
> > > >
> > > > The only solution in my experience is explicit exception coding, plus a
> > > little report that finds abended workflows in production..
> > > >
> > > > Hth,
> > > > Stephan
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Michael Pokraka [mailto:workflow at quirky.me.uk]
> > > > Sent: Dienstag, 18. Mdrz 2003 12:47
> > > > To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> > > > Subject: When is an error not an error?
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > I have a bit of a troublesome situation:
> > > > Two steps, a user decision followed by a background task.
> > > > User executes item, and bg task fails due to binging/object issues. The
> > > > problem itself is another topic, but the most troublesome part is that
> > > > the WF remains in status 'In Process'!
> > > >
> > > > In more detail:
> > > > Decision step logs look normal, ending with 'WI processing complete';
> > > > status 'COMPLETED'.
> > > > The next step does not appear in the log, but a red light appears in the
> > > > tech log with a message. No subsequent steps, nada. The only 'In
> > > > process' item on the whole log is the WF itself.
> > > > SWI2_DIAG doesn't show this up, which is why it's worrying.
> > > > The error is due to an uninstantiated object (resulting from a document
> > > > without line items) "Object 0 does not exist", "Syntax error in
> > > > expression" etc. I've no problem solving these, but more concerned about
> > > > other WF's in production.
> > > >
> > > > Any input appreciated.
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Mike
> > >
> >
> >
> > Alon Raskin
> > 3i Consulting Group
> > http://www.3i-consulting.com
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/