Disappearing Container Elements (Conclusion)

[Josefek, Richard]

We have found that SAP's support pack 43 was to have contained 2 notes in
regards to workflow.
The second note had corrections to the first.
IT would appear that the second not was not distributed.
 
Here is a copy of the OSS note we sent in.
 
System ID : P03 System Patch : SAPKH46C43 Kernel Rel.: 46D
 
Transaction : Program : Screen :
 
After applying SAPKH46C43, our workflow deadline monitoring was having
problems.
 
Upon investigation we found that note 588872, which is supposed to be
included in SAPKH46C44, was included in SAPKH46C43.
 
Moreover, of the 2 sets of correction instructions only one was implemented.
 
 
Correction instruction: 0000539461 was included in SAPKH46C43.
 
Correction instruction 0000505690 was not included.
 
We have implemented Correction 0000505690, and it appears to resolve the
problems that we are having.
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Josefek, Richard
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 5:01 PM
To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Disappearing Container Elements
 
 
We are running R/3 Version 46C and have recently applied support packs 41,
42, 43 for BASIS.
 
A custom Invoice workflow we have been running for over a year with no
problems is now running into problems.  The workflow progresses to the first
level of approvers without problems.  If the first level approvers do not
get to the work item, deadline monitoring kicks in.  This is where the
problem occurs.  The work item loops back to the sub workflow and appears
correctly in their workflow in-box.  However, a few container elements do
not pass to the sub workflow correctly.  When the approver 'Releases' the
document, because of the missing elements, does not follow the posting path.
The workflow remains in process and in an infinite loop.  As a workaround,
we are having the initiator of the document 'Change and Save' the document,
which corrects the problem (assuming the first level now approves prior to
deadline monitoring).
 
Has anyone else experienced this?  We are at a loss since binding occurs
correctly the first time, why wouldn't it work on subsequent passes?  Any
suggestions????
 
Thanks!
 Rick Josefek
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail transmission may contain information that is proprietary, privileged and/or confidential and is intended exclusively for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any use, copying, retention or disclosure by any person other than the intended recipient or the intended recipient's designees is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or their designee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies.
 
 
 =============================================================================