attendance.approved vs attendance.created (40B)

Thu Jun 21 17:41:53 EDT 2001

Hi Michele,
Just a thought.  I wonder if this is an LUW sequencing issue?
If the event was called and the change to the record had not
been committed to the database then the wrong event
(REQUESTCANCELLED instead of APPROVED) would be raised as
it might think the record was still locked.

This is more likely to occur if your system is running slowly
so that might be one pattern to look for.

Other than that I can only suggest raising it in OSS and
investigating the sequence of data updates in the update
task.  If fast entry is just doing an SWE_EVENT_CREATE
that would be a problem.  There are other SWE_EVENT_CREATE* routines
specifically written for working with the update task, but I have
a vague memory that HR have their own event raising routine so
you need to look and see what they are doing.  Plus of course we
are talking HR so they might be using dialog modules which just
complicates the logical unit of work even more.

Good luck.
Regards,
Jocelyn.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michel Laviolette [mailto:michel_laviolette at hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 21 June 2001 11:49 PM
To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: attendance.approved vs attendance.created (40B)

Thanks for your quick responce Jocelyn.

My analysis of the event logs concluded the following:
- Record created in "Unlocked" raises CREATED
- Record created in "Locked" raises REQUESTED
- "Locked" record deleted raises REQUESTCANCELLED
- "Unlocked" record deleted raises DELETED
- "Unlocked" record changed back to "Locked" raises
     APPROVALCANCELLED & DELETED
... and here's the weird one:
- "Locked" record changed to "Unlocked" (basic approval process)
     REQUESTCANCELLED & CREATED  ***OR***
     APPROVED & CREATED

Our attendance workflow works without an hitch if the supervisor approves
the request via the workflow process. The 'left hook' comes when the
supervisor bypasses the workflow process and goes directly in the HR Fast
Entry mode (PA71). Doing so **** sometimes **** raises and event (APPROVED)
which I never encountered through the normal workflow process (who would
have thought that the APPROVED event would be raised in the approval
process... got me!). I've inconsistently been  able to reproduce the problem
in our dev environment. Unfortunatly inconsistent enough not to be able to
tell when it really happens.

Thanks again,
Michel Laviolette

>From: "Dart, Jocelyn" <jocelyn.dart at sap.com>
>Reply-To: SAP Workflow Users' Group <SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
>To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
>Subject: Re: attendance.approved vs attendance.created (40B)
>Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:43:57 +0200
>
>Hi Michel,
>I won't give you my personal opinion of the HR events because language that
>strong
>should never be put in an email, but I can perhaps give you a few clues
>based on my
>own experience with HR events.  If there's an HR person out there perhaps
>they can
>elaborate....
>
>The problem stems from the "lock indicator" field, which is used to
>indicate
>whether or
>not an HR record is active.  Some *expletive deleted* put the lock
>indicator
>in the key
>of the HR record.  So when you are going through the approval process what
>can happen is
>this:
>
>User creates original locked record: CREATED event is raised for the new
>locked record.
>Locked record is approved: APPROVED event is raised for the locked record.
>The locked
>record is then "unlocked" - because this is a change in key, this means the
>locked
>record has been deleted and a new record is created - raising the CREATED
>event.
>An unlocked record is locked again - i.e. the approval has been cancelled,
>therefore
>a REQUESTCANCELLED event is raised for the unlocked record, and the record
>is then
>locked - because this is a change in key, this means the locked record has
>been deleted
>and a new record has been created - raising the CREATED event and so on and
>so forth.
>
>If you think this is *expletive deleted* confusing you are absolutely
>correct.  I was working
>across several types of HR records - I can't remember if ATTENDANCE was one
>of them but
>the behaviour seemed to be common to a  lot of HR records.
>
>In the end for my HR workflows, I ended up using the HR event tables and
>the
>option of using
>HR event function modules to control the events to try and make sure the
>following was happening:
>
>If a record is created "locked" - raise REQUESTED event (not CREATED)
>If a record is created "unlocked" - raise CREATED event
>If a locked record is unlocked - raise APPROVED event for old record,
>CREATED for new record
>If an unlocked record is locked - raise REQUESTCANCELLED event for old
>record, REQUESTED for new record
>
>At least that way I had a consistent behaviour going that I could workflow
>against.
>But I'll admit that as a non-HR person I did get the help of some friendly
>HR folk to help
>me sort this out, and I had some HR event function module examples to work
>from.
>
>Hope that helps a little anyway.
>
>If anyone else in the SAP-WUG has some better way of handling it, I'd love
>to know it myself for future
>reference.
>Regards,
>
>Jocelyn Dart
>Consultant (BBP, Ecommerce, Internet Transaction Server, Workflow)
>SAP Australia
>Email  <mailto:jocelyn.dart at sap.com> jocelyn.dart at sap.com
>Tel: +61 412 390 267
>Fax: +61 2 9935 4880
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michel Laviolette [mailto:michel_laviolette at hotmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, 21 June 2001 5:31 AM
>To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
>Subject: attendance.approved vs attendance.created (40B)
>
>
>Hi,
>I've been experiencing discrepancies with some of the events raised
>(created) through the HR attendance approval process. I have event traces
>(logs) indicating that the attendance approval sometimes (???) raises the
>ATTENDANCE.CREATED followed by ATTENDANCE.REQUESTCANCELLED... Some other
>times, the event ATTENDANCE.APPROVED is followed by ATTENDANCE.CREATED.
>These inconsistencies seam to originate behind the 'Fast Entry' (PA71)
>approval process. My Attendance workflow has a wait for event
>REQUESTCANCELLED which needless to say only traps half of the conditions
>listed above.
>
>My Questions:
>1) Can anyone explain why the REQUESTCANCELLED & APPROVED events are
>interchanged?
>2) If I include a wait for event APPROVED, what other processes could be
>impacted?
>
>Many thanks,
>Michel Laviolette
>Workflow Developer
>Hull Quebec Canada
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   _____
>
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
><http://www.hotmail.com> .
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.