<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3429" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=084212615-19012009>Mike,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=084212615-19012009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=084212615-19012009> When we upgraded from 4.6C to ECC 5.0, we
noticed the upgrade changed our Receiver Err Feedback value from "3 Do not
Change Linkage" to "1 Deactivation of Linkage". We did not notice this
change until a workflow error occurred, and subsequent workflow instances
errored after that. It happened to our Purchase Requisition application
and plenty of workflow errors occurred in a very short period of time.
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=084212615-19012009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=084212615-19012009> You might want to review SWEQADM >
Basic Data tab > Receiver Error Feedback value.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=084212615-19012009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=084212615-19012009> The SAP Inbox feature of "Double-clicking
on an object in the same window is also fully functional in ECC 5.0 and I assume
ECC 6. This checkbox needs to be checked in the Personal workflow settings
as a default value in order to view SAP workflow objects.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=084212615-19012009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=084212615-19012009>Hope this helps and thanks for the ECC 6 update.
We'll be upgrading to ECC 6 later this year.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=084212615-19012009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=084212615-19012009>Thanks,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=084212615-19012009>John Scheinoha</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=084212615-19012009></SPAN><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#0000ff>Briggs & Stratton </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=084212615-19012009></SPAN><SPAN
class=084212615-19012009></SPAN><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff>(<SPAN
class=084212615-19012009>414) 256 - 5136</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu
[mailto:sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Mike
Gambier<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 19, 2009 4:39 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
sap-wug@mit.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> Upgrade to ECC 6 from 4.6c => the
aftermath...so far...<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Hi,<BR> <BR>Well it happened...we upgraded over the
weekend...and things seem to be creaking a little, but so far so good.
:)<BR> <BR>We had a problem with SAP's XPRA for Event Linkages that needed
to be tackled on the day by Oracle DBAs. We couldn't use SAP's single-stream
version of the code because we had 8 million table entries to move from
SWEINSTCOU to SWFDEVINST so we converted their program to a mutli-stream job to
run in parallel. But on the day our Basis people decided to import table
statsitics from a Pre-Prod system which skewed the SQL to run with very poorly
optimised indexes. Once we spotted why the job was taking so long and producing
so little the stats were updated on both the old and the new tables again and
the app servers bounced and the job re-run again. It finished in 20 minutes
instead of the 6 hours it looked like it might take, yay! :)<BR> <BR>Then,
a few hours later with the system up, a quick scan of SWWWIDH entries with
a Status of '02' showed up some issues we weren't aware of. We had about 4k
deadlines that stubbornly refused to fire properly. They kept coming back even
after using the new Transaction SWF_ADM_SWWWIDH to reset
them.<BR> <BR>After a bit of sleuthing it turned out that they were related
to old instances of Workflows (mostly the same template which was
handy) that now were suffering from syntax errors because their container
definition had become invalid during the upgrade. ECC 6 has introduced a
new vulnerability here that we might have to have squished by an OSS Note.
<BR> <BR>In our case a few versions of a common Workflow had an element
that pointed to a SAP-defined structure that had been deleted as part of
the upgrade. Luckily it was obvious that the developer had simply wanted to
find a simple BOOLE-BOOLE flag but had unwisely chosen something else instead.
<BR> <BR>In this situation SAP's new code detects that it is dealing with
an old WF instance and switches to a 'Persistence' version of its Container ABAP
Class inside CL_SWF_CNT_FACTORY, namely CL_SWF_CNT_WF_PERSISTENCE. This Class
duly calls old FMs (SWD_GET_WF_CONTAINER_TABLE) to fetch the Container
Definition for the version of the instance in question which end up selecting
from old tables SWDSWFCONT and SWD_WFCONT. And it's here that the definition of
our element was suddenly found to be pointing to a bogus structure and field
when the element was instantiated at runtime.<BR> <BR>But the new code
can't cope with this syntax error very well and simply bombs out with an
Exception that is eventually caught in the stack:<BR> <BR> IF NOT
por-bus_key IS INITIAL.<BR> l_retcode = l_pmanager->load(
).
<== Return Code comes back here...<BR> CASE
l_retcode.<BR> WHEN
0.<BR><STRONG> WHEN
95.
</STRONG><== Exception bombs out
here...<BR> lr_cx_cnt =
instance->get_last_exception(
).<BR> RAISE EXCEPTION TYPE
cx_swf_utl_obj_create_failed<BR>
EXPORTING<BR>
t100_msg =
lr_cx_cnt->t100_msg<BR>
previous = lr_cx_cnt.<BR> <BR>The upshot of this was that we couldn't even
display these Deadline steps in SWI1, let alone reset their deadlines, because
of a nasty error crawling out. <BR> <BR>In the end I had to resort to
surgery and update the old 4.6c tables directly before we could move these
on :)<BR> <BR>We have some SAP guys here on site so I'll nag them to have
this situation looked at a bit more. I have a feeling though that they've missed
an XPRA or something here because I can imagine other clients suffering from
just this sort of thing were SAP have zapped their own DDIC structures and
Worklow defintions that were perfectly legitimate in 4.6c suddenly become
invalid in ECC 6 and behave erratically like
this.<BR> <BR>Regards,<BR> <BR>Mike GT<BR><BR>
<HR>
Are you a PC? <A href="http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/122465942/direct/01/"
target=_new>Upload your PC story and show the world</A> </BODY></HTML>