Inactive version used in 4.6B

[Markus Brahm]

Hi stephan,
 
I normally prefer copying the workflow templates as this is the safest way of
versioning, nevertheless it has disadvantages concerning reporting etc.
 
Does it help to copy the workflow into a new one and decativate the event
coupling or the starting of the old one?
 
Regards,
 
Markus
 
 
 
 
 
Stephan Becker <stephan.becker at london.com> on 12.09.2000 13:22:18
 
Please respond to SAP Workflow Users' Group <SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
 
To:   SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
cc:    (bcc: Markus Brahm/PLZ/CSC)
 
Subject:  Inactive version used in 4.6B
 
 
 
We seem to be having problems with the new workflow definition version
management (we're on 4.6B and a few days away from go-live with a massive parked
document workflow). This is to enquire if anyone has had similar problems and
can share some experiences:
 
We have created one new version per workflow definition before go-live (for
future testing etc., see OSS note re. modification of a productive workflow).
This new version is inactive in all of our workflow definitions. Example:
Version 0000 is the active one that should be used in production, and there is
an inactive version 0001 that should be used for future development and testing
(for example we have loads of short test deadlines in version 0001, and the
longer realistic deadlines are in the productive version 0000).
 
Here's the problem: The version that gets started in development and test is the
one with the highest number (which is inactive), not the one flagged as active.
We have implemented OSS note 315515 that seems to address a similar problem but
doesn't help (caution, the English version of that is missing some crucial
release information).
Note 315515 is very recent, and the description is not very clear.. it says for
example that as of 4.5, only the active version of a workflow is transported,
which does not seem to be the case, as inactive versions that were never active
are also present in the test system.
 
In addtion, with one workflow template, we are seeing versions that we never
created (e.g. the active one is 0000, we created a new one 0001 for future use,
and now there is another one 0002 and even 0003 that were never created). If we
try to delete the "ghost" version, the version is gone, but we cannot save it
(we would expect a transport request prompt, which doesn't appear, and the
debugging reveals that the system thinks there is no change to save). Some time
later the supposedly deleted ghost version is there again, and we're even
getting a second ghost version now. It has nothing to do with the buffer that
can be reset with PPWFBUF, we've tried that..
 
We've had a look at SWDSHEADER, and can see that some workflows have the ACTIVE
flag on for all versions, whereas others don't. But this may only be a note of
the version that were active at one point, as in HRS1205, the right active flags
are still set..
 
Nice one, isn't it? Any help is appreciated.
 
Greetings from humid Switzerland,
 
Stephan Becker
 
______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup