Help! No successor exists for CASE node 35 with value '8994'

[Michael Pokraka]

Hi,
Thanks for the feedback. It was a combo of nasties: Part one was PEBCAK,
possibly on my part - Not sure, it worked before though, utterly confused=
.
 
Was using   swc_set_element container 'Result' l_decision.
instead of ...container result l_decision, as should be for a result para=
meter.
BUT... it was also a very bad day for buffers - much refreshing and
regeneration required to get the active version running which just added =
to
the confusion. Something I find quite alnnoying at times, as a SWU_OBUF
doesn't always do the job. At one point it was simply skipping steps as i=
f
they weren't there.
 
Anyway, thanks (also to Bradley) for your input - it gave me something to
try out to narrow things down.
 
Cheers
Mike
 
 
Alon Raskin wrote:
> Check if you have a multi decision task and one of the values had no de=
fined
> outcome.
>
> Alternatively, you could have a workflow corruption with the runtime ve=
rsion
> of your workflow (for your sake, i hope this is not the case).
>
> Michael, if you wish to discuss further then give me a call.
>
> Alon
>
> ________________________________
>
>> From: SAP Workflow on behalf of Michael Pokraka
> Sent: Tue 01/06/2004 14:46
> To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Help! No successor exists for CASE node 35 with value '8994'
>
>
>
> Er... yes, an hour before I am due to demo a workflow, I decide to run =
one
> through just to make sure and it spits out:
>
>  Workflow '222096': No successor exists for CASE node 35 with value '89=
94'
>      Message no. WL416
>  Diagnosis
>      The workflow definition is incomplete.
>  Procedure
>      Refer to your workflow system administrator.
>
> Hmmm, it previously worked. A definition check says everything is fine.=
 The
> step in question is a custom task with a result parameter. The outcomes=
 are
> defined as per the parameters - I've even shuffled them around to make =
sure.
> There is no node 35, no CASE node (???). The WF definition all looks fi=
ne.
> I'm posting this before I've done much detailed investigationas I'm in =
a wee
> rush to get this fixed in the next hour, hopefully someone's seen this
> before???? I've got it from a reliable source that this is usually not =
a
> very meaningful message (no kidding!). Oh, and the bit about referring =
this
> to my workflow administrator is not an option.
>
> Any input appreciated, and I'll post back if I've found it....
> Cheers
> Mike
>
>