Update: When is an error not an error?

[Michael Pokraka]

Hi,
Just an update to this ... after removing someone else's ID from the WF
admin field, I started to receive notifications when things go wrong
(Doh!) So it kinda works. I would still prefer an error state, but I
suppose a mailed notify will have to do for now...
 
This was there for legitimate cause, but nevertheless serves as an
example of the little things to watch out for with multiple developers
across the globe :)
 
Cheers
Mike
 
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 03:24:16AM +1100, Alon Raskin wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> I am with you on this. I think this is a nasty 'feature' and I also agree that
> this is a bug with the Workflow sub-system. if the item has gone to error then
> so should the Workflow. I took this up with SAP on the last project and they
> refused to admit that this was a bug. I ended up going back and forth with them
> on this for quite some time to no avail. It even got to the point where myself
> (and another on site SAP Consultant) debugged the Workflow code.
>
> I think the error is caused if an attribute that you are accesssing does not
> exist. The property you are accessing should be returning a
> EXIT_OBJECT_NOT_FOUND if the attribute does not exist.
>
> In your binding you have bound Object1.Object2.Key The expression errors
> (sometimes) because Object2 reurns a EXIT_OBJECT_NOT_FOUND which for some
> unknown reason errors the Task! (but not the WOrkflow).
>
> The way 'around' this is to do a 'EX' Condition (object Exists) on Object2
> before calling the method (which has the problem binding). If the EX condition
> check fails then dont call the method.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alon Raskin
> www.desktopworkplace.com
>
>
> Quoting Michael Pokraka <workflow at quirky.me.uk>:
>
> > Hmm, problem is that there _is_ an exception (red light in the log), and
> > the error happens in the binding - i.e. before any method execution.
> > The error itself is arbitrary, what does worry me is that a  binding
> > error can cause a WF to simply come to a silent stop whilst remaining 'in
> > process'....
> > Sure one can argue that the design needs to be robust enough to handle
> > it, but when you're working at a client who already has a whole bunch of
> > their own flows this is not always an option.
> >
> > By the way, what would a little report look for in this case?? Other
> > than deadlines or trawling through the logs I can't see much of a
> > concrete option.
> >
> > Thanks for the input,
> > Cheers
> > Mike
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:51:41PM +0100, Becker Stephan (extern) wrote:
> > > Hi Michael,
> > >
> > > Think about it what you will, but if a method does not return an explicit
> > exception, the behaviour that you see is all you get..
> > >
> > > The only solution in my experience is explicit exception coding, plus a
> > little report that finds abended workflows in production..
> > >
> > > Hth,
> > > Stephan
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michael Pokraka [mailto:workflow at quirky.me.uk]
> > > Sent: Dienstag, 18. Mdrz 2003 12:47
> > > To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> > > Subject: When is an error not an error?
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > > I have a bit of a troublesome situation:
> > > Two steps, a user decision followed by a background task.
> > > User executes item, and bg task fails due to binging/object issues. The
> > > problem itself is another topic, but the most troublesome part is that
> > > the WF remains in status 'In Process'!
> > >
> > > In more detail:
> > > Decision step logs look normal, ending with 'WI processing complete';
> > > status 'COMPLETED'.
> > > The next step does not appear in the log, but a red light appears in the
> > > tech log with a message. No subsequent steps, nada. The only 'In
> > > process' item on the whole log is the WF itself.
> > > SWI2_DIAG doesn't show this up, which is why it's worrying.
> > > The error is due to an uninstantiated object (resulting from a document
> > > without line items) "Object 0 does not exist", "Syntax error in
> > > expression" etc. I've no problem solving these, but more concerned about
> > > other WF's in production.
> > >
> > > Any input appreciated.
> > > Cheers
> > > Mike
> >
>
>
> Alon Raskin
> 3i Consulting Group
> http://www.3i-consulting.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/