Terminating events

[Thomas Maue]

Bill,
 
I have also notice some different processing (between 3.1 and 4.0) with terminating
events.  In 3.1 you could have a terminating event on a synch method (along with a
result event) and the work-item would disappear if the terminating event raised or
you backed out of the method (result event).  Does not work in 4.0.
 
Here is a quick summary of my terminating event testing in 4.0B:
If synch method (entry in event instance linkage table), tech log shows result event
and wrong path taken when no change or changed.
 
If asynch method (have to change to eliminate WI), tech log shows nothing and
wrong path taken when changed (not changed N/A).
 
If synch method & confirm EOP (no entry in event instance linkage table), tech log
shows terminating event and wrong path taken when no change or changed.
 
If asynch method & confirm EOP (have to set to done & change to eliminate WI),
tech log shows terminating event and wrong path taken when changed (not changed N/A).
 
If asynch method & reject (have to reject or change to eliminate WI), tech log shows
terminating event when reject and nothing when changed.
 
I ended up using the last procedure to get around my problems.  I first had to create a
asynchronous method.
 
I also think there is a problem.
 
Thomas Maue Jr.
SAP Cross-Application Specialist
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From:   Elijah Watkins [SMTP:elijah_watkins at hotmail.com]
Sent:   Friday, February 11, 2000 12:11 PM
To:     SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject:        Re: Terminating events
 
bill,
 
does this mean that asynchronous task are not working the way they are
documented they are suppose to. the reason that i am asking is because i
experienced problems with asynchronous task also.
 
thanks
 
 
elijah
 
 
>From: "Cunningham, Bill" <bill.cunningham at syskoplan.com>
>Reply-To: SAP Workflow Users' Group <SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
>To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
>Subject: Re: Terminating events
>Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:57:56 -0500
>
>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 case.
>Seems like a bug?
>However, if we use the wait for event  / parallel fork approach for each
>terminating event  (we now have three for the single step task)  it will
>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 been
> > reached yet.
> >
> > Rob Lake
> > Development Support, Nestli 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
 
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com