Terminating events

Fri Feb 11 09:38:59 EST 2000

Bill,

I had a similar problem when we migrated to 45B.  Below are the details=
 of
the discussion with Alan.

Kishore Thota
12/13/99 11:24 AM

To:   bpt at sap-ag.de (Business Process Technology)
cc:
From: Kishore Thota/Raleigh/Contr/IBM at IBMUS
Subject:  Re:Workflow 45B upgrade issues  (Document link: Database 'Kis=
hore
      Thota', View '($Sent)')

Hi Alan,

1.  As you can see below the custom object is created under LFA1.  In 3=
1H
LFA1 does have the ExistenceCheck method, but there is no code in the
method, it is not implemented.  In 45B the method is implemented and th=
is
was inherited by the custom object from its super type.   Below are som=
e
picture for this.

2.  The deadlines work both in 31H and 45b, it is the modeling after
deadline which is not working.  I have a branch that has to process aft=
er
the deadline is reached during a "Wait for Event" step, after the deadl=
ine
is reached the workflow does not take that branch.

Here is the object in 3.1H

*********Pictures removed*********

The same object in 4.5B

*********Pictures removed*********

Thanks,
Kishore Thota
Ph: (919) 543-1831
Tie Line: 8-441-1831

bpt at sap-ag.de (Business Process Technology) on 12/13/99 07:08:29 AM

Please respond to bpt at sap-ag.de (Business Process Technology)

To:   Kishore Thota/Raleigh/Contr/IBM at IBMUS
cc:
Subject:  Re:Workflow 45B upgrade issues

Hi Kishore,
Thank you very much for your feedback. I'd like to clarify both points
because I'm not sure of the 3.1 status.

1. I thought that release 31H also supported existence checks. Are you
saying that the superobject for your object had been changed in
release 4.5 so that the existencecheck was called? And prior to release=

4.5 the superobject did not have this method. Or was the existence
check ignored in release 3.1 when you accessed your object with a
function call?
I understand the 4.5 situation, but I thought the behaviour was
identical in 3.1.    By the way, you could have overdefined the
existancecheck method in your subtype or made the method that calls
the function "instance independent".

2. Are you saying that deadlines on events in release 3.1 worked, but
in release 4.5 they no longer work?!

Best regards,
Alan Rickayzen
BPT Product Management
---------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

I had to work around the following two features that were different on
Object creation: Cannot create an instance of an object with an invalid=

object key.

When you try to create an instance of an object from a function module
via  a program with an invalid object key, it fails to create the objec=
t
instance.  This happens only when the object inherits the method
ExistenceCheck from its super type.   This method is triggered every
the object is created and if the key does not exist, the program is
terminated.  I created my object at the top level without a super type,=

this way I could eliminate the ExistenceCheck in my business object and=

could create the object instance.

Deadline modeling:  Cannot model processes after a deadline is reached
wait for event step.

I have a wait for event step, this step waits for the creation of an
with a key.  I also have deadline monitoring (latest end) setup on this=

step, when the deadline is reached it is modeled to take a different
in the workflow.  Even when the deadline is reached, the workitem does
go to the next step in the modeled branch.  The workitem shows that the=

time has elapsed but does not change the status.  I had to create a
simulate this.

Thanks,
Kishore Thota,
PSG Procurement development team.
Ph: (919) 543-1831
Tie Line: 8-441-1831

Thanks,
Kishore Thota
Ph: (919) 543-1831
Tie Line: 8-441-1831

"Cunningham, Bill" <bill.cunningham at syskoplan.com>@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> on
02/10/2000 10:57:56 PM

Please respond to "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU>

Sent by:  SAP Workflow <Owner-SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU>

To:   SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
cc:
Subject:  Re: Terminating events

Rob,
Thanks for your suggestion, it seems this is the only way around the
situation, we had thought that a terminating event meant the workitem /=

task

would terminate, - no matter what, but this does not seem to be the cas=
e.
Seems like a bug?
However, if we use the wait for event  / parallel fork approach for eac=
h
terminating event  (we now have three for the single step task)  it wil=
l
kinda complicate the workflow, which is not a big deal,  - just seems
rather unnecessary.
Regards,
Bill Cunningham

> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rob Lake [SMTP:Robert.Lake at nestlegb.nestle.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 4:06 AM
> To:   SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject:      Re: Terminating events
>
> Bill,
>
> You could place a 'Wait for event' step in parallel with the task in
> question (using a fork).  Then the workflow would proceed to the next=

part
> upon receipt of the event, even if the requested start time had not b=
een
> reached yet.
>
> Rob Lake
> Development Support, Nestl=E9 UK Ltd
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Cunningham, Bill [mailto:bill.cunningham at syskoplan.com]
> Sent: 09 February 2000 20:39
> To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Terminating events
>
>
> Hi All,
> We have an asynchronous task in a workflow
> which has two terminating events and either
> event will terminate the corresponding workitems.
>
> We then activated (Requested Start) deadline monitoring.
>
> The problem is that when the workitem is in a status
> of waiting, for the requested start, and one of the
> terminating event is raised,- the workitem continues to wait.
> When the requested start time is satisfied, the workitem
> changes to a ready state and is sent to the agent completely
> ignoring the fact that there has been a terminating event.
>
> We can see in the workflow log that the terminating event
> has been received, but then upon requested start time,
> the workitem is submitted for execution???
>
> We could not find anything in OSS,
> Has anybody come across this before?  or any ideas of
> ways around this?
>
> Thanks in advance ,
>
> Bill Cunningham

=