How to get a rule to fail on blank responsibilities?

[Michael Pokraka]

Hi Richard, 
I suppose I should have added that I have little control over the data. To make
life interesting the rule also gets used outside of WF, it's used to populate a
field in a document.

The biggest issue is that if the abuser doesn't fill in all the info, it just
picks the first agent. Workflow is supposed to go and get someone to fill in an
agent if it's blank, but so far the rule will always find an agent. 

I'm just desperately trying to avoid coding a FM-based rule which checks the
data and then calls the real rule... it's just way too big a hammer for
cracking a peanut. 

Thanks for the input,
Cheers
Mike

--- Richard Marut <rvmarut at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Mike,
> 
> How about checking the data in a previous step before the activity step with
> the responsibility role/rule? You can then take a different path or action
> when the data is blank.
> 
> Richard...
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of
> Michael Pokraka
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 12:52 PM
> To: SAP Workflow User Group
> Subject: How to get a rule to fail on blank responsibilities?
> 
> G'day all, 
> Passing a blank value to a responsibility will always result in a positive
> test. Can't get them to fail on blank data. Unless of course I'm having a
> daft
> day (quite possible, it's been a long one!)? 
> 
> Now, the tricky bit is that I have many values to test against, but lets
> keep
> it simple: 
> 
> Resp1  Plant = 1000, DocType = *,  Agent 1
> Resp2  Plant = *,    DocType = ZZ, Agent 2
> 
> If I test this without entering any data, it will return all agents, even
> with
> 'Terminate if no resolution' switched on. It somehow feels like a stupid
> question... but how to get around that? 
> 
> In short I want only those with MATCHING data to return agents. I.e. in the
> example above, it I test it with Plant 9999, it will return Agent 2 (since
> the
> doctype is blank). For my purposes, this should also fail (but isn't as
> important as both blanks above). 
> 
> Any obvious answer I might have missed? 
> Cheers
> Mike
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
> 
>