Task stalled when WF triggered from Portal

Wed Jan 11 01:53:59 EST 2006

Hi Tuan,
It could be an auth issue - though then it should error. Check short dumps
(ST22), or maybe it's stuck in the TRFC - SM58.
Cheers
Mike

Tuan Huynh wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I have a WF that starts properly via BUS7051 event created.  When I
> simulated the triggering within R/3
> Using SWUE, my first task which is a background task started and completed
> properly, however, when It is
> Triggered through the Portal, this task gets in a "in process" or
> "started"
> status and it just sits there.
> It seems waiting for something.... Which of course stalled the WF.
> Testing
> of the method invoved works
> Just fine.  I'm running out of idea on where to check...The event started
> properly, the WF started properly,
> When this background task started, it doesn't go further than "in
> process"...
> Any help is muchly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Tuan Huynh
> Tuan.huynh at alcatel.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf
> Of
> sap-wug-request at mit.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:50 AM
> To: sap-wug at mit.edu
> Subject: SAP-WUG Digest, Vol 14, Issue 18
>
> 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: Role resolution using responsibilities (Mike Pokraka)
>    2. How to access ad-hoc objects in class methods (Mike Pokraka)
>    3. RE: Role resolution using responsibilities (Alon Raskin)
>    4. RE: Role resolution using responsibilities (Mike Pokraka)
>    5. RSWUWFML2 - External mail notification (Balasubramanian)
>    6. Workflow Start Transactions vs Start Forms (Munday,Sherie J.)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:45:57 -0000 (GMT)
> From: "Mike Pokraka" <wug.replies at workflowconnections.com>
> Subject: Re: Role resolution using responsibilities
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> Message-ID:
>
> <50705.194.215.164.125.1136893557.squirrel at secure.workflowconnections.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Hi Akshay,
>
> Indicator: Personal Rules
>
>     Rules with responsibilities can be personal or function-based. In the
>     case of personal rules, responsibilities are only relevant if users or
>     persons are assigned directly. In the case of function-based rules,
>     responsibilities are inherited along the organizational structure.
>
> In other words, personal means you need to assign the agents directly, not
> using org units or whatever. I have no idea why it's there, never used it.
> Possibly to force people to assign individual users instead of getting
> lazy
> and assigning a whole org unit.
>
> Cheers
> Mike
>
> akshay.bhagwat at wipro.com wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>  I have doubt related to one of the check box while creating the role
>> using responsibilities.
>> Pls. let me know the significance of check box for - " Personal role"
>> i.e when to use it and when not relevant.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Akshay
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The information contained in this electronic message and any
>> attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the
>> addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged
>> information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not
>> disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
>> immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.
>>
>> WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted via email. The recipient
>> should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses.
>> The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus
>> transmitted by this email.
>>
>> www.wipro.com_______________________________________________
>> SAP-WUG mailing list
>> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:10:21 -0000 (GMT)
> From: "Mike Pokraka" <wug.replies at workflowconnections.com>
> Subject: How to access ad-hoc objects in class methods
> To: sap-wug at mit.edu
> Message-ID:
>
> <14863.194.215.164.125.1136895021.squirrel at secure.workflowconnections.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> G'Day folks,
> Simple question: How can one access Ad Hoc objects of a task in a
> class-based method?
>
> In traditional BOR methods, "SWC_GET_ELEMENT container
> <name-in-calling-workflow>..." does the trick, but class methods have no
> container. So where is it?
>
> Cheers
> Mike Pokraka
> Senior Consultant
> Workflow Connections Ltd.
> Mobile: +44 (0)7786 910 855
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:15:47 -0500
> From: "Alon Raskin" <araskin at 3i-consulting.com>
> Subject: RE: Role resolution using responsibilities
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> 	<30DFBDC75CD5494CBE4C4D408251BF0307144F98 at ms07.mse2.exchange.ms>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> It's a funny one Mike because I always considered it bad practice to
> assign
> User IDs directly to a responsibility. I would be interested to hear from
> anyone else as to why you would want to take this approach.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alon Raskin
> e: araskin at 3i-consulting.com <mailto:araskin at 3i-consulting.com>
> p: +1 207 409 4983 (please note new number)
> f:  +61 3 8610 1239
> w: http://www.3i-consulting.com
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu on behalf of Mike Pokraka
> Sent: Tue 1/10/2006 06:45
> To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
> Subject: Re: Role resolution using responsibilities
>
>
>
> Hi Akshay,
>
> Indicator: Personal Rules
>
>     Rules with responsibilities can be personal or function-based. In the
>     case of personal rules, responsibilities are only relevant if users or
>     persons are assigned directly. In the case of function-based rules,
>     responsibilities are inherited along the organizational structure.
>
> In other words, personal means you need to assign the agents directly, not
> using org units or whatever. I have no idea why it's there, never used it.
> Possibly to force people to assign individual users instead of getting
> lazy
> and assigning a whole org unit.
>
> Cheers
> Mike
>
> akshay.bhagwat at wipro.com wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>  I have doubt related to one of the check box while creating the role
>> using responsibilities.
>> Pls. let me know the significance of check box for - " Personal role"
>> i.e when to use it and when not relevant.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Akshay
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The information contained in this electronic message and any
>> attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the
>> addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged
>> information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not
>> disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
>> immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.
>>
>> WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted via email. The recipient
>> should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses.
>> The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus
>> transmitted by this email.
>>
>> www.wipro.com_______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: application/ms-tnef
> Size: 6255 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url :
> http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20060110/6d07f6d1/attac
> hment-0001.bin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 14:53:22 -0000 (GMT)
> From: "Mike Pokraka" <wug.replies at workflowconnections.com>
> Subject: RE: Role resolution using responsibilities
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> Message-ID:
>
> <40614.194.215.164.125.1136904802.squirrel at secure.workflowconnections.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Generally bad practice yes, but I've had a few be exceptions. Anything
> where
> a person is more important than their position.
>
> If Ziggy Stardust should buy property on the Moon because he is an expert
> on
> Lunar geography then the responsibilty is his regardless of position in
> the
> org chart and it should follow him if he moves.
>
> Another is our old favourite "it always works like this except for
> department Y where Joe does it" (of course falling into the 'bad practice'
> category). More valid is perhaps the exception case where departments
> refer
> to themselves (everything goes to org unit XYZ except if it's raised by
> them
> then it should be Mr. Smith).
>
> Still haven't figured out why we need a tickbox to PREVENT anyone using
> org
> units.... hence I've never used it.
>
> Cheers
> Mike
>
>
> Alon Raskin wrote:
>> It's a funny one Mike because I always considered it bad practice to
>> assign User IDs directly to a responsibility. I would be interested to
>> hear from anyone else as to why you would want to take this approach.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Alon Raskin
>> e: araskin at 3i-consulting.com <mailto:araskin at 3i-consulting.com>
>> p: +1 207 409 4983 (please note new number)
>> f:  +61 3 8610 1239
>> w: http://www.3i-consulting.com
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu on behalf of Mike Pokraka
>> Sent: Tue 1/10/2006 06:45
>> To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
>> Subject: Re: Role resolution using responsibilities
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Akshay,
>>
>> Indicator: Personal Rules
>>
>>     Rules with responsibilities can be personal or function-based. In
>> the
>>     case of personal rules, responsibilities are only relevant if users
>> or
>>     persons are assigned directly. In the case of function-based rules,
>>     responsibilities are inherited along the organizational structure.
>>
>> In other words, personal means you need to assign the agents directly,
>> not using org units or whatever. I have no idea why it's there, never
>> used
> it.
>> Possibly to force people to assign individual users instead of getting
>> lazy and assigning a whole org unit.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Mike
>>
>> akshay.bhagwat at wipro.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>  I have doubt related to one of the check box while creating the role
>>> using responsibilities.
>>> Pls. let me know the significance of check box for - " Personal role"
>>> i.e when to use it and when not relevant.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Akshay
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The information contained in this electronic message and any
>>> attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the
>>> addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged
>>> information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not
>>> disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
>>> immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any
>>> attachments.
>>>
>>> WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted via email. The recipient
>>> should check this email and any attachments for the presence of
>>> viruses.
>>> The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus
>>> transmitted by this email.
>>>
>>> www.wipro.com_______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SAP-WUG mailing list
>> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:16:20 -0800 (PST)
> From: Balasubramanian <pbala_1996 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: RSWUWFML2 - External mail notification
> To: sap-wug at mit.edu
> Message-ID: <20060110161621.68340.qmail at web51409.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi All,
>
>   Best wishes for the New Year.
>
>   I have a question regarding the RSWUWFML2, which send a notification
> about
> a workitem to the external mail. For some reasons, it takes a while to
> reach
> the external mail. Is there a way, we can improve the speed of delivery
> from
> the SAP Server to external email server.
>
>   Please write your  ideas.
>
>   Thanks in advance,
>   Bala.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Photos
>  Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands
> ASAP.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20060110/bd966b83/attac
> hment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:50:12 -0500
> From: "Munday,Sherie J." <MUNDAYSJ at airproducts.com>
> Subject: Workflow Start Transactions vs Start Forms
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> Message-ID:
>
> <43ADE045B291B240BAA1252FF11E8313052C2191 at us0368exmp.america.apci.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hello Fellow Workflowers,
>
> We are upgrading from 4.6C to ECC 5.0.  Our start transactions were not
> carried over to the new version of the workflows.  I am trying to recreate
> the start transactions using Start Forms.  My problem is that the old
> Start
> Transaction bound the object into the workflow, and the Start Form does
> not.
> For example, if I want to have the user initiate the workflow by entering
> the Position (plan version, position number, and start date), with the old
> Start Transaction, that instance of PDOTYPE_S (position) would then be
> validated on the screen and bound into the workflow container.  With the
> Start Form, I need to use a structure.  If I use OBJEC as my structure,
> the
> individual data elements will automatically bind into the workflow
> container, however the associated object is not instantiated.  I then have
> to add another step to "findwithoutdialog" to instantiate the object.  Is
> there a way to bind a BOT from the start form into the workflow container
> directly without the additional step?
>
> Many Thanks,
> Sherie
>
> Sherie Munday
> SCC - Workflow Developer
> 610-481-4354
> Mundays at airproducts.com
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20060110/3353da3d/attac
> hment.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>
>
> End of SAP-WUG Digest, Vol 14, Issue 18
> ***************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>