Transport leads to "Inconsistent workflow definition"

[Mark Pyc]

Thanks Kjetil.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, no it's the WF that gets the errors.
The transport logs are all clear.

And you're preaching to the converted. I'm the kind of guy who hits
refresh in SWUD 3 times no matter what anyone says.


On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:27:18 +0200, Kjetil Kilhavn <kjetilk at statoil.com> wrote:
> 
> If I understand correct you get an error in the transport log, not when you
> try to run the workflow.
> 
> Have you tried transporting the subworkflows first in a separate transport
> and then transporting your main workflow? This should of course not be
> necessary and should not really help, but SAP works in mysterious ways.
> --
> Kjetil Kilhavn
> 
>                    Mark Pyc
>                    <mark.pyc at gma        To:     "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
>                    il.com>              cc:     (bcc: Kjetil Kilhavn)
>                    Sent by:             Subject:     Re: Transport leads to "Inconsistent workflow definition"
>                    sap-wug-bounc
>                    es at mit.edu
> 
>                    25.03.2005
>                    12:42
>                    Please
>                    respond to
>                    "SAP Workflow
>                    Users' Group"
> 
> 
> Yep they say 'No Probs' in both systems.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:28:53 +0800, Dart, Jocelyn <jocelyn.dart at sap.com>
> wrote:
> > Mark,
> > Have you tried the node correction/block correction options in the menu
> > of SWDD?  They do sometimes help.
> >
> > Jocelyn
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf
> > Of Mark Pyc
> > Sent: Thursday,24 March 2005 5:16 AM
> > To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
> > Subject: Re: Transport leads to "Inconsistent workflow definition"
> >
> > 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???)
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is
> intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorised use, dissemination of the
> information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the
> addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete
> this message.
> Thank you.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>