WS14000084 for contracts on SRM 4.0 not starting

Mon Sep 26 11:01:33 EDT 2005

Yes Sue - you should make sure only one workflow starts for a particular
contract and the event SAVED or CHANGEVERSIONSAVED. Your conditions
should be mutually exclusive.  
You can have the same contract go to different workflows for SAVED
versus CHANGEVERSIONSAVED - that's fine. 

This is not just a technical restriction - it's logically what must
happen - i.e. only one contract approval workflow must be active for a
particular contract at any one time.

Woah - just looked at the workflows - you should not be turning on the
WS14000084 Update Contract after Approval workflow anyway - that's a
subworkflow! That doesn't even have the SAVED or CHANGEVERSIONSAVED
events in standard!  Someone's been modifying.... get them to fix it
before it causes more problems. 

Please re-educate your SRM consultant. 

You only turn on the main workflows - WS14000086, WS14000088,
WS14000148, etc. 

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 <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. 

________________________________

From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf
Of Susan R. Keohan
Sent: Tuesday, 27 September 2005 12:30 AM
To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
Subject: Re: WS14000084 for contracts on SRM 4.0 not starting

Hi All,

The IMG for SRM 4.0 says 

'Make sure that only one workflow is started for each requirement
coverage request, that means you must formulate the conditions in such a
way that a requirement coverage request cannot fulfill more than one
condition.'.  

Even though this is regarding requirement coverage requests, would this
same rule hold true for Contracts ?

Has anyone turned on the standard WFs for contracts in SRM ?  If so, did
you turn on WS14000086, or WS14000084 ?  Our SRM consultant has the
start conditions for *both* workflows turned on.

Still fishing, hoping for a nibble...
Sue

Susan R. Keohan wrote:

	Hello all, 

	This question is being posed from an old R/3 Workflow-er, so
please excuse my lack of knowledge about SRM. 

	We have upgraded from EBP 3.5 to SRM 4.0 in our sandbox
environment.  This our landscape: 
	SAP_BASIS        640        SAPKB64011 
	SAP_ABA            640       SAPKA64011 
	SRM_SERVER    500       SAPKIBKS06 

	Our SRM consultant has enabled (via SPRO and SWB_COND) the
standard SAP workflow WS14000084 and WS14000086 for BUS2000113, events
CHANGEVERSIONSAVED and SAVED. 
	Example of Start Conditions is attached.  All the 'normal'
workflow customizing has been carried out via SWU3.  Event log is turned
on.  Event linkage is activated, and the check functions are 
	SWB_2_CHECK_FB_START_COND_EVAL (WS14000084) and
SWB_CHECK_FB_START_COND_EVAL (WS14000086). 

	The contract is created, but of course, no workflow starts.  Why
else would I be annoying you with this on a Friday. 

	SWUD for WS14000084 gives yellow lights on the  binding between
task and event.  Simulate Event gives red light for WS14000084, green
light for WS14000086.  The information on WS14000084 is that there is an
error in the binding definition. 

	OSS Note 879528 refers to this workflow (WS14000084) in a
different context, but suggests changing the binding.  Okay, I know how
to do that, but step 7 of this note says to change the binding to.... 

	then there is nothing.  No information on what the binding
should be changed *to*. 

	Can anyone shed some light on: 
	What the correct binding for this task should be ? 
	How to tell if the event is raised.  I know in SRM that the
standard event log will not help. 
	What is the difference (in a nutshell) between the two check
functions ? Why use one over the other ? 
	Any other tips and tricks to teach this old dog would be
helpful. 

	Thanks! 
	Sue 

________________________________

________________________________

	_______________________________________________
	SAP-WUG mailing list
	SAP-WUG at mit.edu
	http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug

-- 
Susan R. Keohan
SAP Workflow Developer
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood Street
LI-200
Lexington, MA. 02420
781-981-3561
keohan at ll.mit.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20050926/70d72ace/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 242801 bytes
Desc: ATT181624.jpg
Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20050926/70d72ace/attachment.jpg