Inconsistent behavior between SAP Rule and underlying Agent Determination function module

[Serge Boulay]

Hi Partha,
 
Do you use SWC_GET_ELEMENT AC_CONTAINER... statement in you function =
module
in order to get these container elements into you function module =
variables?
 
Best regards.
 
Serge
 
-----Message d'origine-----
De=A0: SAP Workflow [mailto:Owner-SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU] De la part de
Chatterjee, Partha (US - San Ramon)
Envoy=E9=A0: 29 juillet 2004 12:37
=C0=A0: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Objet=A0: Re: Inconsistent behavior between SAP Rule and underlying =
Agent
Determination function module
 
Hi Mike,
=20
I am not sure I understand your terminology.
=20
On PFAC_DIS, I click the simulate button (the abacus type symbol).  At =
this
point, I get a pop-up which allows me to enter my custom container =
elements
(Plant, Event Date, and Incident Type which are from the EH&S area).  =
After
enter the custom container elements, I click the test button (wrench
symbol) and get the problem I am speaking about.  If I run the same test
with the underlying function module under se37 it works fine and I get =
the
Agents I am expecting in ACTOR_TAB.
=20
I am not sure what the Org Management or the Extended Object ID have to =
do
with this?  So I guess answer to your question would be no as the =
parameters
I am feeding the Rule do not have anything to with Org Management.
=20
Best regards,
Partha
 
        -----Original Message-----=20
        From: SAP Workflow on behalf of Mike Nickson=20
        Sent: Thu 7/29/2004 11:53 AM=20
        To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU=20
        Cc:=20
        Subject: Re: Inconsistent behavior between SAP Rule and =
underlying
Agent Determination function module
=09
=09
 
        When you are simulating the rule (presumably via PFAC) there are =
2
        possible ways to supply the parameters.
=09
        Either via - Org Management Object =3D USBLOGGSF
=09
        Or via - Extended Object ID =3D BLOGGSF   &   Object Type =3D US
=09
        Are these the parameters youa re using ?
=09
        Mike
=09
=09
=09
=09
=09
        "Chatterjee, Partha (US - San Ramon)" <pchatterjee at DELOITTE.com>
        Sent by: SAP Workflow <Owner-SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
        29/07/2004 15:34
        Please respond to SAP Workflow Users' Group
=09
=09
                To:     SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
                cc:
                Subject:        Inconsistent behavior between SAP Rule =
and
underlying Agent Determination
        function module
=09
=09
        Hi All,
=09
        I have developed a very simple rule that picks some agents from =
a
custom
        table.  When I execute the function module underlying the rule =
in
        test/debug, the function module always behaves as expected =
returning
the
        correct result to ACTOR_TAB.  However, if I simulate the rule I =
get
'No
        Agent Found'.  I don't quite understand what is happening =
between
the
        two places.  We are on 4.7 extension set 2.
=09
        Has anyone run into this type of problem before?  The only =
relevant
note
        I can find is 707767 but it is hard to know from the minimal =
problem
        description whether its appropriate.
=09
        Also, where is the place to search for q&a's on this forum.
=09
        Best regards,
=09
        > Partha Chatterjee
        >
=09
=09
=09
        This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
information
        intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected =
by
law.
        If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this
message. Any
        disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the =
taking
of any
        action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
=09
 
 
 
 
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential =
information
intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. =
 If
you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message.  Any
disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of =
any
action based on it, is strictly prohibited.