AW: Re: Re: critical problem with background task

[faq@saportal.net]

there's only a binding between the main object in the workflow container and the object reference in the task container.

Therefor, when I test the method from the object builder I just enter the key field values for the object.

I'm still not sure what exact error the messages I mentioned below are supposed to mean?




>If the method only requires the key why is there any specific binding
>at all at the task? Does the method have any import parameters? The
>method automatically has access to the object key as the method
>belongs to the object and in such cases the binding button does not
>appear when you look at the TS task.
>
>On 8/16/05, faq at saportal.net  wrote:
>> >The only data, which are required is basically the object key, which I pass 
>on when I test the single task or the object itself. The binding on the 
>workflow does it too. and yes the object reference is always the same, 
>whereever i test it.
>> 
>> 
>> >G'day Tom,
>> >
>> >If you can't unit test the task successfully then forget about
>> >including it in a WF.
>> >
>> >When you test the task are you passing IDENTICAL information as when
>> >you test the method?
>> >
>> >It sounds like the workitem is getting created. Does the container
>> >appear to be fully loaded?
>> >
>> >Have fun,
>> >Mark
>> >
>> >On 8/16/05, faq at saportal.net  wrote:
>> >> Hello *,
>> >>
>> >> we encouter a critical issue, which is going to drive me to insanity: We
>> >have a background method, which works fine, if I test it out of the 
>business
>> >object builder. However, as soon as this method is called from a standard 
>task
>> >and/or a workflow, it runs into an error with the messages:
>> >>
>> >> - Work item 000003765344: Object ZXXX method PROCESSBACKGROUND cannot be
>> >executed
>> >>
>> >> - Object with runtime number '0' not defined
>> >>
>> >> I double checked the binding between tasks/workflow and task/method a
>> >million time now. Nothing apprears to be wrong.
>> >>
>> >> Please let me know, what the cause of this problem might be, since I 
>have
>> >absolutly no clue why this master piece of german engineering (aka SAP) is
>> >complaining.
>> >>
>> >> Looking forward for enlightenment...
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Tom
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> SAP-WUG mailing list
>> >> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
>> >> <a> 
>>href="http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug">http://mailman.mit.edu/
>m
>> >ailman/listinfo/sap-wug</a>
>> >>
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >SAP-WUG mailing list
>> >SAP-WUG at mit.edu
>> ><a> 
>>href="http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug">http://mailman.mit.edu/
>m
>> >ailman/listinfo/sap-wug</a>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SAP-WUG mailing list
>> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
>> <a 
>href="http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug">http://mailman.mit.edu/m
>ailman/listinfo/sap-wug</a>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>SAP-WUG mailing list
>SAP-WUG at mit.edu
><a 
>href="http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug">http://mailman.mit.edu/m
>ailman/listinfo/sap-wug</a>