Problems with versions of workflow templates

[Werner Kößl]

Thanks for the fast response,
no we have not refreshed the bugger. Is it necessary?
We have 4.6C, our current hotpack level is SAPKA46C32 (ABA Support Package
32 for 4.6C).
Regards.
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Becker Stephan (extern)" <Stephan.Becker.ext at mchw.siemens.de>
To: <SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: Problems with versions of workflow templates
 
 
werner,
have you refreshed the bugger with swu_obuf after your transport? if not,
there's no error.. BUT it heavily depends on your release AND hotpack level
what transport related workflow problems you can have. if you tell me your
release/hotpack info, I can give you a hint or two..
hth,
stephan
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Werner Kv_l [mailto:werner.koessl at hirschvogel.de]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 3:05 PM
To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Problems with versions of workflow templates
 
 
Hi all,
 
we have problems with versions in our productive system.
When we change an existing workflow template in our test-system, we
transport it to the productive system.
Now i display the transported workflow template in the productive system. I
open the menu Goto
and select   -> Workflow Builder -> Choose version.
 
A popup opens with all versions. But the active version that we've
transported a few minutes ago is standing at the bottom
with the number 0000. And older versions are standing with 0001, 0002 above
the new version. But the transported one (0000)
with the current date is active (there are e.g. 3 versions: 0000, 0001,
0002).
 
When i leave this screen, and go in again, there is a new number, e.g. 0003
(numbers now: 0000, 0001, 0002, 0003).
And the new number is set active. It's the one we've transported. And now
it's displayed as the highest number with the current date.
And the 0000 is the first version we created. This is how it should be. But
i always have to go in the popup "choose version" before it is right.
 
I tried to find an OSS note about this mistake, but i didn't find one.
 
Does someone know something about this problem ???
 
Thanks, regards !!!