<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<p>
Hi,<br />
<br />
maybe I'm completely wrong, but your statements about RFC caught my attention.<br />
Could you check the error message in the hanging workitem, and is it saying somthing<br />
like "Processing was interrupted..."?<br />
If yes,check whether the RFC-destination WORKFLOW_LOCAL_<sy-mandt> is registered<br />
in SMQS?<br />
If not, do that (with the default parms suggested) and retry.<br />
<br />
Regards, Joerg<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Quoting Rick Bakker <rbakker@gmail.com>:<br />
<br />
> Hello,<br />
><br />
> RSWWERRE = Sounds like a temporary locking problem (as you probably know)<br />
><br />
> Not sure how that can  happen with an instantiation step. Could you explain<br />
> what the fork is for?<br />
> Maybe you could try a test workflow that does these steps in series.<br />
><br />
> regards<br />
> Rick Bakker<br />
> hanabi technology<br />
><br />
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Hilsbos, Margaret A <<br />
> Margaret.Hilsbos@dayzim.com> wrote:<br />
><br />
>>  Well, this is interesting. We added some steps to a workflow that we?ve<br />
>> been using for a long time now.  Everything worked fine when we tested our<br />
>> changed workflow in our development system. Now in our QA system, the<br />
>> workflow hangs at the new steps (which are in a fork because they are<br />
>> independent of each other, and independent of the previously existing<br />
>> steps). The two steps that hang are instantiations of class-based objects.<br />
>> This is my first use of ABAP OO classes as object instances in a workflow<br />
>> (been using utility methods for a while now). It took me a couple whacks to<br />
>> get everything working fine in Dev, but it was working and not hanging, so<br />
>> I wouldn?t think anything about the class is the problem.  Also, if I test<br />
>> the class methods in SE24, everything works fine.****<br />
>><br />
>> ** **<br />
>><br />
>> Here?s the step history in Dev for one of the steps ? total time 2s:****<br />
>><br />
>> Workflow System           Background work item created<br />
>> 03/12/2012 15:51:39****<br />
>><br />
>> Workflow System           Execution started automatically<br />
>>    03/12/2012 15:51:39****<br />
>><br />
>> Workflow System           Work Item Processing Complete<br />
>> 03/12/2012 15:51:40****<br />
>><br />
>> Workflow System           Result Processing<br />
>>                   03/12/2012 15:51:41****<br />
>><br />
>> ** **<br />
>><br />
>> Here?s the step history for the same step in QA, with a similar object ?<br />
>> total time about 27 minutes!: ****<br />
>><br />
>> Workflow System            Background work item created<br />
>> 03/16/2012 10:08:38****<br />
>><br />
>> Workflow System            Execution started automatically<br />
>> 03/16/2012 10:08:38****<br />
>><br />
>> Workflow System            RSWWERRE<br />
>>                  03/16/2012 10:35:07****<br />
>><br />
>> Workflow System            Work Item Processing Complete        03/16/2012<br />
>> 10:35:08****<br />
>><br />
>> Workflow System            Result Processing<br />
>>               03/16/2012 10:35:08****<br />
>><br />
>> ** **<br />
>><br />
>> The two new steps are similar and are parallel in a three-way fork with<br />
>> another step that wasn?t touched for this change, other than to move it<br />
>> into the fork. However, due to other changes on the QA box which hosed an<br />
>> RFC connection, the old step is hanging too, but for purposes of our test I<br />
>> just manually complete that one.  (I?ll get the RFC problem fixed later, I<br />
>> promise.)  I wouldn?t think the steps in parallel would care about the RFC<br />
>> step in another branch hanging, but ? any other ideas?****<br />
>><br />
>> ** **<br />
>><br />
>> Since this process isn?t time critical and RSWWERRE is restarting it soon<br />
>> enough, we?ll probably move it forward even if we don?t figure out why it?s<br />
>> doing this. I just wondered if anyone has any ideas why this might be<br />
>> happening?****<br />
>><br />
>> ** **<br />
>><br />
>> Oh, and everything was transported yesterday, and I started testing today,<br />
>> and did SWU_OBUF ?just because? anyway, but of course that didn?t help.***<br />
>> *<br />
>><br />
>> ** **<br />
>><br />
>> Thanks in advance for any suggestions!****<br />
>><br />
>> ** **<br />
>><br />
>> Margaret ****<br />
>><br />
>> ** **<br />
>><br />
>> _______________________________________________<br />
>> SAP-WUG mailing list<br />
>> SAP-WUG@mit.edu<br />
>> <a target="_blank" href="http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug">http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug</a><br />
>><br />
>><br />
><br />
</p>
</body>
</html>