How to get a rule to fail on blank responsibilities?

Mon Mar 14 09:18:17 EST 2005

Hi Sheldon, 
Catching up on some rather old WUG postings??
The nonsense value as default idea is good, something else I've also noticed in
the meantime is that FM-based rules seem to quietly ignore default values set
in the container definitions - it's always blank regardless of any initial
value specified. (6.20). 

Thanks for the feedback,
Cheers
Mike

--- Sheldon Oxenberg <soxenber at scsnet.csc.com> wrote:

> Hello Mike,
> 
> I experienced the same problem, and I could not find a neater way or
> something seemingly obvious.
> 
> In my implementation, a "blank" value is not actually passed for the
> rule, a blank value results from "no value" being passed.  Therefore, I
> can default all data values to a nonsense value (e.g. '...'), which is
> passed to the rule in the case of "no value", therefore resulting in a
> failure. 
> 
> Regards,
> Sheldon
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Pokraka [mailto:workflow at quirky.me.uk] 
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 9:09 AM
> To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
> Subject: RE: How to get a rule to fail on blank responsibilities?
> 
> Hi Richard, 
> I feel like I'm deliberately trying to be difficult here, but I promise
> I'm not
> :-)
> 
> The rule is used in an application -  a QM notification uses rules to
> determine
> the various agents when it is created. So workflow doesn't feature at
> this
> point. 
> 
> As to filling in values... I suggested it, but they don't want to have
> to do
> that for umpteen responsibilities and remember not to leave blanks for
> ever
> more. I also kinda find it difficult to argue the requirement of 'if it
> isn't
> explicitly specified by a responsibility, leave it blank'.
> Oh, and there are a heck of a lot of elements to fill in ranges for -
> we've
> already created our own 'slimmed down' copy of the SAP standard rule
> because it
> has well over 200 container elements! (rules 03100024/6/7).
> 
> For now I've done the terrible deed and checked for blanks in a FM-based
> rule
> which calls RH_GET_ACTORS for the responsibility rule. But still I
> remain
> curious if there's a neater way for something seemingly obvious.
> 
> Thanks for your feedback!
> Cheers
> Mike
> 
> --- Richard Marut <rvmarut at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > Mike,
> > 
> > What I meant to say was, check the data in a preceding condition step.
> If
> > blank, send something (mail or work item) to the workflow initiator or
> an
> > administrator.
> > 
> > By the way, have you tried not using an *? How about using a range for
> Plant
> > such as 0001 - 9999 and DocType of 01 - ZZ which would eliminate a
> blank as
> > being a valid piece of data? I didn't try this when I ran into the
> same
> > issue because the users wanted the work item to go to everyone when
> the data
> > was blank.
> > 
> > Richard...
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On
> Behalf Of
> > Michael Pokraka
> > Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 4:51 AM
> > To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
> > Subject: RE: How to get a rule to fail on blank responsibilities?
> > 
> > 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
=== message truncated ===