Transport leads to "Inconsistent workflow definition"

[Mark Pyc]

Thanks Partha, but no joy with that I'm affraid.


On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:47:31 -0600, Chatterjee, Partha (US - San
Ramon) <pchatterjee at deloitte.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> I remember running into a similar problem in 4.6.  Mine used to keep saying something 'Workflow not available in version 0'
> 
> For this problem, I used to go into the Workflow Builder screen and just hit the Check button and come back out.  Once I went back in workflow would function correctly.
> 
> You may have already tried this but it was just a thought.
> 
> With regards,
> Partha
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu on behalf of Mark Pyc
> Sent: Wed 3/23/2005 9:59 AM
> To: WUG
> Subject: Transport leads to "Inconsistent workflow definition"
> 
> 
> G'day Wugers,
> 
> Version 6.20 patch 41.
> 
> I'm also raising this with OSS, but I'm open to any suggestions.
> 
> I have a Workflow which is working in Dev but when transported to QA
> is giving me grief. Initially when the transports went in the first
> subflow to be called (either a 1 or 2 stage approval subflow) would
> fail with message "Inconsistent workflow definition: Node/step number
> 1 is not available". The long text of error WL377 says to look at the
> runtime structure and try Block Correction and to look at the contents
> of tables SWD_STEPS and SWD_NODES. Without really knowing what I'm
> expecting to see in these tables this gives me no joy (block
> correction says 'No Probs').
> 
> I tried a simple reimport of the transports which resulted in the main
> Workflow suffering exactly the same issue "Inconsistent workflow
> definition: Node/step number 1 is not available".
> 
> I next tried generating a new version of each Main and Subflow in Dev
> and retransporting. This had the effect of fixing the main flow, but
> again the subflows now fail with the same message.
> 
> This indicates to me that I'm facing a transport issue. The note
> 686297 (already mentioned today) has been applied.
> 
> The long text of WL377 also says to raise an OSS message - so that's
> just what I'll do.
> 
> Any takers?
> 
> Have fun,
> Mark
> 
> (what did I say about needing to allow for OSS note application in
> Development quotes???)
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
> 
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
> 
> 
>