ESS Leave request Workflow

[Mark Pyc]

G'day David,

This is a bit of classic. You've got a couple of basic choices. 

1 - Convince your compliance team that the Workflow log contains all
authorization history. Not sure about this specific transaction but
most have a link to object services which gets you to the log. This is
always my preference.

2 - Use the 'Advance with Dialog' functionality and wrap the call in a
non-background non-dialog step. So it is a foreground step but it
contains no dialog interaction. When this is the subsequent step to
the approval it will happen under the user-id of the approver
completely transparently to the user. (This assumes you're not using
the portal and UWL where this doesn't work.) In this case you need to
ensure that the authorisers have sufficient authority to perform the
action.

It is possible in some cases that the BAPI allows you to specify the
Update user, but not often. Of course there are always other 'dirty'
options. You could always go and manually update the 'Changed by'
value but that's entering into a whole other world of issues.

Have fun,
Mark

On 5/11/05, Bibby, David <david.bibby at linklaters.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> I have a problem whereby the absence record created by this workflow is a background step and is therefore created by WF-BATCH.
> The business requirement is that when the users go into transaction PA20 to view absences they want to see the approvers name not 'WF-BATCH'. Apparently this is for compliance reasons.
> 
> One solution I have is to create a Z copy of the BAPI BAPI_PTMGRATTABS_MNGCREATION.
> >From initial investigation into this BAPI it's not obvious where it needs modifying. It could mean modifying more than one if the actual change needed is another function call within this BAPI. I would also need to delegate this BO and create a new method on the Z business object plus a new workflow step to replace the existing standard one.
> 
> This solution seems quite laborious and I wondered if anyone had come across this problem before and had another solution, or am I already on the right track with what I propose above ?
> 
> Many Thanks In Advance
> David
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or
> otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal
> rules. If you have received it by mistake please let us know
> by reply and then delete it from your system; you should not
> copy it or disclose its contents to anyone. All messages sent
> to and from Linklaters may be monitored to ensure compliance
> with internal policies and to protect our business. Emails are
> not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they
> can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain
> viruses. Anyone who communicates with us by email is taken
> to accept these risks.
> 
> The contents of any email addressed to our clients are subject
> to our usual terms of business; anything which does not relate
> to the official business of the firm is neither given nor endorsed by it.
> 
> The registered address of the UK partnership of Linklaters is One
> Silk Street, London, EC2Y 8HQ. Please refer to
> http://www.linklaters.com/regulation for important information on
> the regulatory position of the firm.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>