SRM 4.0 Subtype attribute error in starting event
Chentorycki, Richard
Richard.Chentorycki at molex.com
Tue Nov 15 09:16:59 EST 2005
Why am I receiving this email ?
Rich
-----Original Message-----
From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of Stéphane Bailleul
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 3:04 AM
To: sap-wug at mit.edu
Subject: RE: SRM 4.0 Subtype attribute error in starting event
Hi Jocelyn,
The Attribute is a calculated attribute made on the same principle than the
standard attribute ExistFreeTextLineItem, it calculates if a contract and
catalogid exist.
The attribute is then like TLANSUPTA-COMPLETE
In the starting condition I am checking if it is EQ X or NE X
The result of the attribute is correct, no problem
One more time what surprise me is that the message on the event trace is
Operator 'EQ': The value of the left operand cannot be determined, the left
operand is not the value of the attribute but the attribute by itself. (
Error message SWF_RLS_001101)
Best regards
Stephane
>From: sap-wug-request at mit.edu Reply-To: sap-wug at mit.edu To:
>sap-wug at mit.edu
>Subject: SAP-WUG Digest, Vol 12, Issue 62 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 21:19:15
>-0500
>
>Send SAP-WUG mailing list submissions to sap-wug at mit.edu
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug or, via email, send a
>message with subject or body 'help' to sap-wug-request at mit.edu
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at sap-wug-owner at mit.edu
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than
>"Re: Contents of SAP-WUG digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. RE: Customer Master Data changes (Dart, Jocelyn) 2. RE: SRM 4.0
>Subtype attribute error in starting event (Dart, Jocelyn)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:07:16 +0800 From: "Dart, Jocelyn" To: "SAP
>Workflow Users' Group" Subject: RE: Customer Master Data changes
>Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5E989.4DE8F0C1" MIME-Version: 1.0
>Precedence: list Reply-To: SAP Workflow Users' Group Message: 1
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------_=_NextPart_001_01C5E989.4DE8F0C1 Content-Type: text/plain;
>charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>Siva,=20 Suggest you also look at SAP MDM - Master Data Management as
>this
>is exactly the sort of scenario it handles, including workflow processes.
>You can also call the MDM Java or COM API to include MDM functionality in a
>broader workflow process - e.g. if you want to have a wide audience of
>people initiate requests via form/email/web ui. =20 =20
>
>Regards,=20 Jocelyn Dart=20 Senior Consultant=20 SAP Australia Pty Ltd.=20
>Level 1/168 Walker St.=20 North Sydney=20 NSW, 2060=20 Australia=20 T +61
>412 390 267=20 M + 61 412 390 267=20 E jocelyn.dart at sap.com=20
>http://www.sap.com =20
>
>The information contained in or attached to this electronic
>transmission is
>confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the
>person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended
>recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution, copying, review,
>retransmission, dissemination or other use of this electronic transmission
>or the information contained in it is strictly prohibited. If you have
>received this electronic transmission in error, please immediately contact
>the sender to arrange for the return of the original documents.=20
>
>Electronic transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure and
>accordingly,
>the sender does not accept liability for any such data corruption,
>interception, unauthorized amendment, viruses, delays or the consequences
>thereof.
>
>Any views expressed in this electronic transmission are those of the
>individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender
>is authorized to state them to be the views of SAP AG or any of its
>subsidiaries. SAP AG, its subsidiaries, and their directors, officers and
>employees make no representation nor accept any liability for the accuracy
>or completeness of the views or information contained herein. Please be
>aware that the furnishing of any pricing information/ business proposal
>herein is indicative only, is subject to change and shall not be construed
>as an offer or as constituting a binding agreement on the part of SAP AG or
>any of its subsidiaries to enter into any relationship, unless otherwise
>expressly stated.=20
>
>=20
>
>________________________________
>
>From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On
>Behalf Of
>Reddymeka, Siva Sent: Tuesday, 15 November 2005 5:20 AM To: sap-wug at mit.edu
>Subject: Customer Master Data changes
>
>
>
>Hello,=20
>
>We are looking for a Workflow solution for Customer Master Data changes.
>We=20 need following functionality:=20 * Field level workflow
>approval process (Multi-Level approval). It=20 could be sequential or
>parallel approval process.=20 * Changes can be proposed by Data entry
>clerk but it should not take=20 into affect unless and until it is
>approved.=20 * Those proposed changes should be stored in temporary
>tables (or with=20 different version) and should be updated after the
>request is approved.=20 * Once the request is approved/rejected,
>Initiator and the group=20 should be notified via e-mail.=20
>
>Please let me know if we have any similar workflow process
>functionality
>
>available in SAP modules.=20
>
>Regards,=20 Siva=20
>
>
>------_=_NextPart_001_01C5E989.4DE8F0C1 Content-Type: text/html;
>charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>
>
>>charset=3Dus-ascii">
>
>
>
>face=3DArial=20 color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Siva,
>
>face=3DArial=20 color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Suggest you also look at SAP
>MDM -
>Master Data=20 Management as this is exactly the sort of scenario it
>handles, = including=20 workflow processes. You can also call the MDM Java
>or COM API to = include=20 MDM functionality in a broader workflow process
>- e.g. if you want to = have a=20 wide audience of people initiate requests
>via form/email/web = ui. =20
>
>
>
Regards, =
>
>lang=3Den-us>Jocelyn=20 Dart color=3D#808080=20 size=3D1>Senior
>Consultant
>face=3DArial=20 color=3D#808080 size=3D1>SAP Australia Pty Ltd. =
>
>lang=3Den-us>Level 1/168 = Walker=20 St. color=3D#808080=20
>size=3D1>North
>Sydney face=3DArial=20 color=3D#808080 size=3D1>NSW, 2060
>lang=3Den-us>>face=3DArial color=3D#808080 size=3D1>Australia
>lang=3Den-us>T = +61 412 390=20 267 color=3D#808080=20 size=3D1>M + 61
>412 390 267 lang=3Den-us>>face=3DArial color=3D#808080 size=3D1>E =
>jocelyn.dart at sap.com=20
>
>href=3D"http://www.sap.com/">http://www.sap.com
>
>size=3D1>The=20 information contained in or attached to this electronic
>transmission is=20 confidential and may be legally privileged. It is
>intended only for the = person=20 or entity to which it is addressed. If
>you are not the intended = recipient, you=20 are hereby notified that any
>distribution, copying, review, = retransmission,=20 dissemination or other
>use of this electronic transmission or the = information=20 contained in it
>is strictly prohibited. If you have received this = electronic=20
>transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender to arrange =
>for the=20 return of the original documents.
>
>size=3D1>Electronic=20 transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure
>and
>accordingly, the = sender does=20 not accept liability for any such data
>corruption, interception, = unauthorized=20 amendment, viruses, delays or
>the consequences = thereof.
>
>size=3D1>Any views=20 expressed in this electronic transmission are
>those
>of the individual = sender,=20 except where the message states otherwise
>and the sender is authorized = to state=20 them to be the views of SAP AG
>or any of its subsidiaries. SAP AG, its=20 subsidiaries, and their
>directors, officers and employees make no = representation=20 nor accept
>any liability for the accuracy or completeness of the views = or=20
>information contained herein. Please be aware that the furnishing of any =
>pricing=20 information/ business proposal herein is indicative only, is
>subject to = change=20 and shall not be construed as an offer or as
>constituting a binding = agreement on=20 the part of SAP AG or any of its
>subsidiaries to enter into any = relationship,=20 unless otherwise
>expressly stated.
>
>
>
>From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu=20 [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On
>Behalf
>Of Reddymeka,=20 Siva
Sent: Tuesday, 15 November 2005 5:20 AM
To:=20
>sap-wug at mit.edu
Subject: Customer Master Data=20
>changes
>
>
Hello,
>
We are looking for a Workflow =
>solution for=20 Customer Master Data changes. We size=3D2>need=20 following
>functionality: size=3D2>* Field level workflow = approval=20 process
>(Multi-Level approval). It face=3D"Courier New"=20 size=3D2>could be
>sequential or parallel approval process. =
>
>face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2>* = Changes can be=20 proposed by Data
>entry clerk but it should not take face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2>into
>affect unless and until it is = approved.=20
>
>size=3D2>* Those=20 proposed changes should be stored in temporary
>tables (or with =
>
>face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2>different version) and should be updated =
>after the=20 request is approved. size=3D2>* Once the request is=20
>approved/rejected, Initiator and the group face=3D"Courier New"=20
>size=3D2>should be notified via e-mail.
>
Please let me know if we have any =
>similar=20 workflow process functionality size=3D2>available in SAP
>modules.
>
Regards, =
>
>face=3DArial color=3D#000080 size=3D1>Siva
>
>------_=_NextPart_001_01C5E989.4DE8F0C1--
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:18:45 +0800 From: "Dart, Jocelyn" To: "SAP
>Workflow Users' Group" Subject: RE: SRM 4.0 Subtype attribute error in
>starting event Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: list
>Reply-To: SAP Workflow Users' Group Message: 2
>
>Stephanie,
>
>You haven't given us any details of your new attribute to work with.
>
>For instance, is it calculated or a database read? If its a database
>read,
>perhaps the data has not yet been saved at the time the start condition is
>evaluated? If its calculated - are the values it is reading available at
>the time the start condition is evaluated? Is it a quantity or value field
>- in which case have you made sure there is an appropriate unit/currency
>field linked to it to describe it?
>
>Have you correctly used buffered data by using the correct SRM APIs
>e.g.
>BBP_PD_SC_GETDETAIL, or are you doing direct reads against database tables
>- in which case you may be getting a misleading result?
>
>Remember that SRM checks the start conditions during the save shopping
>cart
>process.
>
>Does it determine the right workflow when you look at the approval
>preview
>before saving the shopcart? This is a good indication of whether the
>data/calculation makes sense prior to saving.
>
>Have you tried testing your shopping cart via transaction se37 function
>module BBP_PDH_WFL_CHECK_START (hope that's the right one - it's something
>like that anyway, you'll find it fairly quickly)?
>
>Worst case, debug through the save process.
>
>Regards, Jocelyn Dart Senior Consultant SAP Australia Pty Ltd. Level 1/168
>Walker St. North Sydney NSW, 2060 Australia T +61 412 390 267 M + 61
>412 390 267 E jocelyn.dart at sap.com http://www.sap.com
>
>The information contained in or attached to this electronic
>transmission is
>confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the
>person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended
>recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution, copying, review,
>retransmission, dissemination or other use of this electronic transmission
>or the information contained in it is strictly prohibited. If you have
>received this electronic transmission in error, please immediately contact
>the sender to arrange for the return of the original documents. Electronic
>transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure and accordingly, the sender
>does not accept liability for any such data corruption, interception,
>unauthorized amendment, viruses, delays or the consequences thereof. Any
>views expressed in this electronic transmission are those of the individual
>sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is
>authorized to state them to be the views of SAP AG or any of its
>subsidiaries. SAP AG, its subsidiaries, and their directors, officers and
>employees make no representation nor accept any liability for the accuracy
>or completeness of the views or information contained herein. Please be
>aware that the furnishing of any pricing information/ business proposal
>herein is indicative only, is subject to change and shall not be construed
>as an offer or as constituting a binding agreement on the part of SAP AG or
>any of its subsidiaries to enter into any relationship, unless otherwise
>expressly stated.
>
>
>-----Original Message----- From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu
>[mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of Stéphane Bailleul Sent:
>Tuesday, 15 November 2005 5:35 AM To: sap-wug at mit.edu Subject: SRM 4.0
>Subtype attribute error in starting event
>
>Dear Jocelyn
>
>I have put back the answer and question history in the message below I
>have
>in fact made the delegation The starting event are based on BUS2121 and on
>the starting condition 'browser' I can see my attributes In SWO1 while
>testing the object BUS2121 the attributes is appearing so in fact the
>delegation seems to work fine But the attribute doesn't seem to be
>understood as valid for the starting condition function
>
>Any idea ? Best regards Stephane
>
>My Question I have set up a new attribute in the Shopping cart business
>object, when I go in transaction SWO1 with my object ZBUS2121 and test it
>the new attribute is calculated without any problem. I have now added this
>attributes to my starting condition, and I can see in the trace for the
>event that the attributes is not calculated (Check FM
>SWB_2_CHECK_FB_START_COND_EVAL, Operator 'EQ': The value of the left
>operand cannot be determined) The error is happening in the form
>evaluate_rule from the function SWB_COND_EVAL. Your Answer Did you remember
>to set up the delegation between BUS2121 and ZBUS2121 ? Try testing your
>attribute using business object BUS2121 - if you have set up the delegation
>correctly you should be able to do that from SWO1.
>
>Best regards
>
>
> >From: sap-wug-request at mit.edu >Reply-To: sap-wug at mit.edu >To:
>sap-wug at mit.edu >Subject: SAP-WUG Digest, Vol 12, Issue 59 >Date: Mon,
>14
>Nov 2005 12:04:33 -0500 > >Send SAP-WUG mailing list submissions to >
>sap-wug at mit.edu > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
>visit > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug >or, via email,
>send a message with subject or body 'help' to > sap-wug-request at mit.edu >
> >You can reach the person managing the list at > sap-wug-owner at mit.edu
> >>
> >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than
>"Re: Contents of SAP-WUG digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. RE: One
>more thing: Start workflow in background without using > event - is
>it possible (R/3 ver 46C) (Kjetil Kilhavn) > 2. Re: Agent Assignment not
>active in Production Support > (Lalitha Sankaran) > >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >- >
> >Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:23:13 +0100 >From: "Kjetil Kilhavn" >To: "SAP
>Workflow Users' Group" >Subject: RE: One more thing: Start workflow in
>background without using > event - is it possible (R/3 ver 46C)
> >Message-ID:
><273AA3C12CC7C54DA3C0C33F3857FE5C616B00 at ST-EXCL03.statoil.net>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Precedence: list >Reply-To: SAP Workflow
>Users' Group >Message: 1 > >Thanks for the input, but there are two
>snags
>here (one in our solution and >one in Generic Object Services). > >We only
>have a small workflow which works with the purchase requisition. >Once we
>determine it needs to be approved we start a new workflow with a >custom
>object type which is used for all kinds of documents in our approval
> >solutions. Thus the rejection workflow is created once and works for
> >all
> >documents, and there won't be any requisition object there. Saves a lot
>of >work, all I have to do in the custom object (ZBUS2009) is to
>implement
>an >interface where I have defined four attributes (to set the
> >document-specific identifier fields in the custom object type and a
> >description) and two events. > >Secondly, since ME53N publishes
>Requisition and not Requisition item, the >workflow overview would be
>pretty hard to use if workflows for approval and >rejection were all in
>that list (it's going to be bad enough as it is when >there are more than a
>handfull of items). I start the workflow for >requisition item, and when it
>has been determined that approval is required >I assign a reference to its
>aggregate object, which is the requqisition. >That was the only solution I
>found for getting it picked up by GOS. > >I remembered that I had read a
>little about anchors in The Book, so I had a >glance at that again Saturday
>evening. I guess I'll have to wait for our >upgrade (or a project on one of
>our systems which already run 6.x) before I >look more closely at them. >--
> >Kjetil Kilhavn, Statoil ØFT KTJ ITS BKS SAP Basis > > > -----Original
>Message----- > > From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu > >
>[mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of Dart, Jocelyn > > Sent: 14.
>november 2005 09:50 > > To: SAP Workflow Users' Group > > Subject: RE: One
>more thing: Start workflow in background > > without using event - is it
>possible (R/3 ver 46C) > > > > Kjetil, > > Yes - SRM exploits ad hoc
>anchors programmatically. > > Re viewing the rejection - so long as all of
>your workflows > > are linked to the Requisition object so that they show
>in > > Generic Object Services you could use that to see who has the > >
>rejection. > > So far as displaying the requisition the same applies - you
> > > just need the link to the Requisition object. > > Getting a
> > > complete
>overview of the approval process would > > require some thought and
>careful
>tailoring of the log > > information displayed - but that's why of course
>you really > > want ad hoc anchors. > > > > > > Regards, > > Jocelyn Dart >
> > Senior Consultant > > SAP Australia Pty Ltd. > > Level 1/168 Walker
> > St.
> > > North Sydney > > NSW, 2060 > > Australia > > T +61 412 390 267 > > M
> + 61 412 390 267 > > E jocelyn.dart at sap.com > > http://www.sap.com > >
> > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu >
> > > > > >
>[mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of Kjetil Kilhavn > > Sent:
>Monday, 14 November 2005 6:45 PM > > To: SAP Workflow Users' Group > >
>Subject: RE: One more thing: Start workflow in background > > without using
>event - is it possible (R/3 ver 46C) > > > > Too late.... At 2:30 AM on
>Sunday I had a new solution in QA. > > I slept well when I got home. > > To
>my knowledge the responsibilities are not changed too > > often, so I think
>it is acceptable that the logs will display > > multiple reporting entries
>if that happens. > > > > I think your suggestion suffers from the same
>problem as > > Flavios suggestion. I wouldn't be able to display a purchase
> > > requisition, look at workflow overview and follow the > > complete
>approval process. With the solution I have, if the > > document is
>rejected
>I can see who has that rejection for > > processing. I wouldn't be able too
>if I did what you > > suggested (or would I?). > > > > With regards to the
>ad hoc anchor - is that something one can > > exploit programatically? I
>noticed your mentioning of them in > > another post and it seemed they are
>more of a manual thing. I > > suppose I will learn all about it in a couple
>of years. > > -- > > Kjetil Kilhavn, Statoil ØFT KTJ ITS BKS SAP Basis > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From:
> > > > > > sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu >
> > > [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of Dart, Jocelyn > > >
>Sent: 14. november 2005 02:20 > > > To: SAP Workflow Users' Group > > >
>Subject: RE: One more thing: Start workflow in background > > > without
>using event - is it possible (R/3 ver 46C) > > > > > > Kjetil, > > > Too
>bad you are in 4.6C. Sounds exactly like an ad hoc > > > anchor step
>scenario - but that's 6.10 and above. > > > > > > All I can think of is to
>possibly implement your subflows as > > > separate workflows - passing the
>main work item id of the > > > main workflow, and then have them pass back
>their results to > > > the main workflow, e.g. via a custom event. > > > >
> > > > > > Regards, > > > Jocelyn Dart > > > Senior Consultant > > >
> > > > > > SAP
>Australia Pty Ltd. > > > Level 1/168 Walker St. > > > North Sydney > > >
>NSW, 2060 > > > Australia > > > T +61 412 390 267 > > > M + 61 412 390
>267 > > > E jocelyn.dart at sap.com > > > http://www.sap.com > > > > > > > >
>-----Original Message----- > > > From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu > > >
>[mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of Kjetil Kilhavn > > > Sent:
>Sunday, 13 November 2005 6:14 AM > > > To: SAP Workflow Users' Group > > >
>Subject: RE: One more thing: Start workflow in background > > > without
>using event - is it possible (R/3 ver 46C) > > > > > > Not a bad idea, but
>right off the bat I don't think it solves > > > the problem, because I
>would basically just move it somewhere else. > > > > > > I think the core
>of my problem is that I want to have a > > > dynamic and changeable number
>of parallell branches, in > > > essence a dynamic fork (requiring all
>branches to complete), > > > where new branches can be added without
>touching the existing > > > branches. Otherwise it can be solved by using
>dynamic > > > parallell processing. > > > Basically I want an even more
>dynamic parallell processing solution. > > > > > > I was probably too brief
>in my explanation as well, but a > > > picture or ten should make the
>design a little clearer. The > > > initial workflow is not of interest for
>this problem. What > > > you can see in the "Approve document" workflow is
>that I have > > > three parallell branches. The two rightmost ones are
>endless > > > loops. The rightmost one is in the -02 picture, while the > >
> > leftmost one is in the -01 picture. > > > > > > So, whenever it is
>detected by the middle branch that there > > > has been a change in
>responsibility, a "ReportTo" event > > > should occur. This is also true
>for the initial reporting. > > > The left branch waits for the workflows
>which report the > > > document to a specific approving object to complete.
>Thus I > > > can't simply finish the Repord document flows by publishing >
> > > events, because then the left branch will complete. > > > Catch 22
>again! > > > > > > To make things worse I would prefer that the
>workflow
>log is > > > readable, by having all the "Report document" workflows at > >
> > the same level and by hiding a lot of the steps from the > > >
> > ActiveX
>version of the log. > > > > > > The simplest solution is to use a
>triggering event for the > > > workflow, but then the workflow log will be
>less interesting > > > as it will not be possible to see the rejections and
>read the > > > notes that are associated with the rejections. > > > > > > I
>suppose I will have to resort to a dirty trick - modifying > > > the
>container to add a dummy element to the list of > > > approvers, stopping
>and starting workflows and then removing > > > the dummy element again. > >
> > -- > > > Kjetil Kilhavn, Statoil ØFT KTJ ITS BKS SAP Basis > > > > >
> > > >
>-----Original Message----- > > > > From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu > > >
>>
>[mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of Flavio Oliveira > > > > Sent:
>12. november 2005 18:32 > > > > To: sap-wug at mit.edu > > > > Subject: RE:
>One more thing: Start workflow in background without > > > > using event -
>is it possible (R/3 ver 46C) > > > > > > > > What if you put your event
>listener inside your subflow, > > not on the > > > > main flow. So, when
>something changes, the subflow will > > > finishes and > > > > the main
>flow will be called again. > > > > > > > > You can have a container element
>(if necessary) to tell > > you how the > > > > sublow has finished (because
>of the process completion or > > > because of > > > > any change). > > > >
> > > > > Then your main flow can reevaluate again and start another > >
> > > > > >
>subflow if > > > > necessary. > > > > > > > > I do not know if this can
>solve your problem, but is what I could > > > > think about... > > > > > >
> > > Flavio. > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Kjetil Kilhavn" > > > >
> >Reply-To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" > > > > >To: "SAP Workflow
> >User's
>Group" > > > > >Subject: One more thing: Start workflow in background >
>> >
>without using > > > > >event - is it possible (R/3 ver 46C) > > > > >Date:
>Sat, 12 Nov 2005 17:25:40 +0100 > > > > > > > > > >Before I changed it to
>parallell processing I tried > > > another obvious > > > > >solution, using
>a starting event on the subworkflow. > > Then the loop > > > > >could just
>create the event and continue and get back to the > > > > wait step > > > >
> >again. There was only one catch, and it was catch 22. With that > > >
> >>
> >solution I lost the possibility to look at the approval > > > process
>from > > > > >the Generic Object Services of the document, because the
>> >
> > > workflows that > > > > >were started by the events weren't
> > > available
>in the log of > > > the main > > > > >workflow. > > > > >-- > > > >
>>Kjetil
>Kilhavn, Statoil ØFT KTJ ITS BKS SAP Basis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>From: Kjetil Kilhavn > > > > > > Sent: 12. november 2005 17:08 > > > > > >
>To: SAP Workflow User's Group > > > > > > Subject: Start workflow in
>background without using > > > event - is it > > > > >possible (R/3 ver
>46C) > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I have come across a real show-stopper
>in the new > > > > approval > > > > > > solution I am working on. Since I
>have now been twisting > > > > my head for > > > > > > hours, trying to
>change the solution to parallell > > > processing and > > > > > > realising
>that that won't work either I now hope someone > > > > reads this > > > > >
> > message has a brilliant idea. Otherwise it is probably > > > time to
> > go
> > > > > > > back to the design stage again. > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One
>basic idea behind the solution was that workflows > > > > should not be
>> >
> > > > > stopped unless it was necessary (so attachments would be > > >
> > > > > >
>available), > > > > > > and therefore the design was created so it
>would
>listen for > > > > > > significant events and then do what should be done >
> > > before it went > > > > > > back to listening again. > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > In the design I have a workflow which is started per > > > >
>document. This > > > > > > workflow has to be created for each document
>type > > (requisition, > > > > > > order, service entry and so on). It
>evaluates the > > document and > > > > > > decides if it is ready and needs
>to be approved at all. > > > > If approval > > > > > > is required a
>generic subworkflow for approval is started. > > > > > > > > > > > > The
>workflow for approval finds out which objects are > > > responsible > > > >
> > > for approval and creates one event for each such > > > >
> > > responsible
>object. > > > > > > This event is captured in a parellell branch which
>> >
> > > listens for the > > > > > > event, starts a subworkflow and loops
> > > back
>to listen for > > > > the event. > > > > > > However - and I could kick
>myself for not thinking about > > > > this before > > > > > > now - when
>the subworkflow is started the main workflow > > > > waits for it > > > > >
> > to complete. So when the document is changed and there > > > is
> > another
> > > > > > > approver in addition to the original one, there is no-one
> > > > > > > > >
> > > listening > > > > > > for the event because the loop hasn't
> > > completed
>its circle! > > > > > > > > > > > > What I need is a multistep task
>that
>can be started in > > > > background so > > > > > > the flow continues. As
>far as I can see there is no such > > > > thing, at > > > > > > least in
>version 4.6C. > > > > > > I've been thinking about ways to circumvent the
>problem, > > > > e.g. having > > > > > > a parallell branch that completes
>after a minute, but > > > > that will only > > > > > > cause the
>subworkflow to be killed when the other branch > > > > completes. > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I just changed it to a parallell processing step so all
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > subworkflows can be started in parallell when there are >
> > > > > > > > >
>multiple > > > > > > approvers at first, but that doesn't solve the
>real >
> > > > problem which is > > > > > > related to changes. I'm being
> > > > driven
>back inch by inch > > > and it is > > > > > > rather depressing.... > >
>> >
> > > > > > > > > Right now I only see one solution: if there are any >
> > > > > > > > > >
>changes in > > > > > > responsibility, kill all the active subworkflows
>and
> > > > > start new ones. > > > > > > I'm hoping someone else sees a
> > > > > better
>solution. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Kjetil Kilhavn, Statoil ØFT KTJ
>ITS
>BKS SAP Basis > >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>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. > >------------------------------ >
> >Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:42:28 -0500 >From: Lalitha Sankaran >To:
> >"SAP
>Workflow Users' Group" >Subject: Re: Agent Assignment not active in
>Production Support >Message-ID: >In-Reply-To:
> ><18339.194.215.164.125.1131977914.squirrel at secure.workflowconnections
> >.com>
> >References: >
><59690.194.215.164.125.1131970190.squirrel at secure.workflowconnections.c
>om>
> > >
><18339.194.215.164.125.1131977914.squirrel at secure.workflowconnections.c
>om>
> >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >
>boundary="----=_Part_5374_13263583.1131986548719" >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >Precedence: list >Reply-To: SAP Workflow Users' Group >Message: 2 >
> >------=_Part_5374_13263583.1131986548719 >Content-Type: text/plain;
>charset=ISO-8859-1 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >Content-Disposition: inline > >Hi Mike, > Had to go and set the Task
>Attribute as General Task in RPS, > That worked and now it is working
>and
>sending our workitems, >Appreciate your help > Thank you >Lalitha > > >
>On 11/14/05, Mike Pokraka wrote: > > > > Hi Lalitha, > > Set a task to
>general, if it asks you for a transport then it's enabled, > > if not then
>it isn't. > > Transaction OOTR, entry 'Trasnport Switch' controls the task
>attributes. > > > > For agent assignment - such as assigning org units to a
>task - you have >t= >o > > dig around HR customising. Actually best you
>speak to an HR person as >you > > need to consider number ranges and stuff
>very carefully before > > transporting HR relationships. > > > > Cheers > >
>Mike > > > > Lalitha Sankaran wrote: > > > Hi Mike, > > > How do I
>determine Which process is being used, for Agent Assignment, > > > whether
>customizing or Manual. > > > Appreciate your help, > > > Lalitha > > > > >
> > > > > On 11/14/05, Mike Pokraka wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Lalitha, > >
> > > > > >>
>Agent assignments are either in a separate customising transport or > >
>done > > >> manually in each system, depending on how your system is
>configured. > > >> Cheers > > >> Mike > > >> > > >> Lalitha Sankaran wrote:
> > > >> > Hi All, > > >> > The Agent Assignment in the task is active
> > > >> > in
>Dev, > > >> > and the workitems are sent to the correct Agents > > >> >
>that are picked using Method and our own logic. > > >> > Everything was
>working fine in Dev, > > >> > But after moving to PS, The workflow > > >> >
>gets started , The agents are picked, > > >> > but the workitem is not
>sent,Since the Agent Assignment > > >> > is not active. > > >> > What Do I
>need to check ? > > >> > Please Advise, > > >> > Lalitha > > >> >
>_______________________________________________ > > >> > SAP-WUG mailing
>list > > >> > SAP-WUG at mit.edu > > >> >
>http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >
> >> Mike Pokraka > > >> Senior Consultant > > >> Workflow Connections
> >> Ltd.
> > > >> Mobile: +44 (0)7786 910 855 > > >>
>_______________________________________________ > > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > Mike
>Pokraka > > Senior Consultant > > Workflow Connections Ltd. > > Mobile: +44
>(0)7786 910 855 > > _______________________________________________ > >
>SAP-WUG mailing list > > SAP-WUG at mit.edu > >
>http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug > > >
> >------=_Part_5374_13263583.1131986548719 >Content-Type: text/html;
>charset=ISO-8859-1 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >Content-Disposition: inline > >
Hi Mike,
> >
> >
Had to go and set the Task Attribute as General
> >Task i= >n RPS, >
> >
That worked and now it is working and sending our workitems,
> >
Appreciate your help
> >
> >
Thank you
> >
Lalitha
> >
> >
On 11/14/05, > >class=3D"gmail_sendername"=
> > >Mike Pokraka <>
> > >>href=3D"mailto:wug.replies at workflowconnections.com=
> >">wug.replies at workflowconnections.com> wrote: >
> >0= >px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Hi Lalitha,
Set a task to
> >gen= >eral, if it asks you for a transport then it's enabled,
if not then it
> >i= >sn't. >
Transaction OOTR, entry 'Trasnport Switch' controls the task
> >attributes= >.
For agent assignment - such as assigning org units to a task -
> >you= > have to
dig around HR customising. Actually best you speak to an HR
> >per= >son as you >
need to consider number ranges and stuff very carefully
> >before
trans=
> >porting HR relationships.
Cheers
Mike
Lalitha Sankaran
> >wro= >te:
>Hi Mike,
> How do I determine Which process >is= > being used, for Agent
>Assignment, >
>whether customizing or Manual.
> Appreciate your >= >help,
>Lalitha
>
>
> On 11/14/05, Mike >= >Pokraka <>
> >href=3D"mailto:wug.replies at workflowconnections.com">wug.repl=
> >ies at workflowconnections.com >> wrote:
>>
>>Hi Lalitha,
>>Agent
> >assig= >nments are either in a separate customising transport or done
>>
> >m= >anually in each system, depending on how your system is
> >configured.
> >>> Cheers
>>Mike
>>
>>Lalitha Sankaran
> >w= >rote:
>> > Hi All,
>> > The Agent Assignment in
> >the= > task is active in Dev,
>> > and the workitems are sent to the
> >= >correct Agents >
>> > that are picked using Method and our own
> >logic.
>&g= >t; > Everything was working fine in Dev,
>> > But after
> >movi= >ng to PS, The workflow
>> > gets started , The agents are
> >picke= >d, >
>> > but the workitem is not sent,Since the Agent
> >Assignment> >r>>> > is not active.
>> > What Do I need to check
> >?> >r>>> > Please Advise,
>> > Lalitha
>> >
> >__= >_____________________________________________ >
>> > SAP-WUG mailing list
>> > > >href=3D"mailto:S=
> >AP-WUG at mit.edu">SAP-WUG at mit.edu
>> > > >href=3D"http://mail=
> >man.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug">http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/
> >listin=
> >fo/sap-wug >
>> >
>>
>>
>>Mike
> >Pokraka
&=
> >gt;> Senior Consultant
>>Workflow Connections
> >Ltd.
>>=
> > Mobile: +44 (0)7786 910 855
>>
> >__________________________________= >_____________ >
>>SAP-WUG mailing list
>> > >href=3D"mailto:SAP-WUG at mit=
> >.edu">SAP-WUG at mit.edu
>> > >href=3D"http://mailman.mit.edu/mai=
> >lman/listinfo/sap-wug">http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wu
> >g<=
> >br> >>>
>_______________________________________________
>
> >SA= >P-WUG mailing list
> > >href=3D"mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu">SAP-WUG at mit.e= >du
>
> >http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>
Mike=
> > Pokraka
Senior Consultant
Workflow Connections Ltd.
Mobile: +44
> >(= >0)7786 910 >855
_______________________________________________
SAP-WU=
> >G mailing list >
SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> >href=3D"ht=
> >tp://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug">http://mailman.mit.edu/mailm=
> >an/listinfo/sap-wug
> > >------=_Part_5374_13263583.1131986548719--
> >------------------------------ >
> >_______________________________________________ >SAP-WUG mailing list
> >SAP-WUG at mit.edu >http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug > > >End
>of SAP-WUG Digest, Vol 12, Issue 59
> >***************************************
>
>
>_______________________________________________ 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
>
>
>End of SAP-WUG Digest, Vol 12, Issue 62
>***************************************
_______________________________________________
SAP-WUG mailing list
SAP-WUG at mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (including any attachments) may contain Molex confidential information, protected by law. If this message is confidential, forwarding it to individuals, other than those with a need to know, without the permission of the sender, is prohibited.
This message is also intended for a specific individual. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message or taking of any action based upon it, is strictly prohibited.
Chinese Japanese
www.molex.com/confidentiality.html
More information about the SAP-WUG
mailing list