SAP-WUG Digest, Vol 24, Issue 61
Her, Merta
MHer at tqs.com
Mon Nov 20 16:13:17 EST 2006
Dear Workflower,
This is my first question posted in this forum, hopefully this is the
right way and I am using the right format....
We are in ECC 5.0 and release 6.40. We went live for SAP in February and
we are currently using workflow in PLM module for DMS and ECM.
We have been facing this locking issue randomly happened in our
production and quality system. The error from workflow log is "Document
XXXX is locked by WF-BATCH". I have two steps in workflow one is to
update the document user( from originator to editor with custom BO
"zdraw" new method "setuser") and the next step is to update the
document status( BO "zdraw" "setstatus" method which inherited form
standard BO "draw").
I have tried to use "wait" statement(1st try), "BAPI_DOCUMENT_ENQUEUE",
"BAPI_DOCUMENT_DEQUEUE" (2nd try) and "Commit work and wait" (3rd try)
to add one step in between, however the issue remains.
The other question I had was we need to write "commit work" when we use
BAPI to perform database update in the ABAP program. But I don't see
"commit work" in the method of BO(for example "setstatus" in "draw"
object) which performs database update. How does workflow perform DB
update properly without "commit work" by referencing standard method?
Could anyone please share your expertise with the issue I am facing?
Thank you in advance,
Merta
-----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: Monday, November 20, 2006 2:35 PM
To: sap-wug at mit.edu
Subject: SAP-WUG Digest, Vol 24, Issue 61
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: Does anyone have anything against seing Guided
Proceduresquestions here? (Gavin Mooney)
2. Re: Leave request Workflow - WS20000081 (Nash John)
3. RE: SRM 4.0 (EBP 5.0) - Line Item SC approval, Completion
requiredfor new Line (Baunach, Natasha R)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:13:09 -0200
From: "Gavin Mooney" <gavinmooney at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Does anyone have anything against seing Guided
Proceduresquestions here?
To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
Message-ID:
<7a545e270611200913s42a2dc64h3e9a14d655ec2e59 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Agree with Sherie, glad to soak up the WUG wisdom.
Bring them on.
- Gavin
2006/11/20, Mark Pyc <mark.pyc at gmail.com>:
> Aye!
>
> I recently attended a SAP Workshop and apparently SAP are pumping huge
> development effort into the area. I also see it as a natural extension
> but from what I've seen although it is being marketed as an
> end-user/functional consultant tool I don't believe it for a second.
> I'm sure there will be plenty of tricks and traps to keep the techo's
entertained.
>
> Have fun,
> Mark
>
>
>
> On 11/20/06, Munday,Sherie J. <MUNDAYSJ at airproducts.com> wrote:
> > Kjetil,
> > I agree with Sue. Although my company is not there yet, undoubtedly
> > when we get there, it will fall to the workflow team to assist with
> > Guided Procedures. I'll gladly soak up any wisdom from fellow
> > WUG'rs along the way!
> > Cheers,
> > Sherie
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On
> > Behalf Of Susan R. Keohan
> > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 10:39 AM
> > To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
> > Subject: Re: Does anyone have anything against seing Guided
> > Proceduresquestions here?
> >
> > Hi Kjetil,
> >
> > I, for one, have no objections at all. It seems like GP are going
> > to be using the same techniques we all know and love, so this would
> > be a natural extension of our forum.
> >
> > But that's just me....
> >
> > Cheers!
> > Sue
> >
> > Kjetil Kilhavn wrote:
> > > It does not seem far-fetched to assume that developers who have
> > > been working with SAP Business Workflow will be asked to work with
> > > Guided Procedures (or is it only here....) as well. If people
> > > (i.e. you) have
> >
> > > nothing against it, I would like to post my Guided Procedures
> > > questions here.
> > >
> > > Thought I'd raise the issue now, before I actually start
> > > developing the GP (and run into problems). Our first "real"
> > > project is coming up
> > ...
> > >
> > > I am unfortunately not a very frequent visitor in SDN, so perhaps
> > > they
> >
> > > have forums that should rather be used.
> > > --
> > > Kjetil Kilhavn, Statoil OFT GBS BAS DEV SAP OFT (Corporate
> > > Planning, Finance & Services) GBS (Global Business Services) BAS
> > > (Business Application Services) DEV (Application Development) SAP
> > > (SAP
> > > Development)
> > >
> > >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> >
> > --
> > Susan R. Keohan
> > SAP Workflow Developer
> > MIT Lincoln Laboratory
> > 244 Wood Street
> > LI-200
> > Lexington, MA. 02420
> > Phone: 781-981-3561
> > Fax: 781-981-1607
> > keohan at ll.mit.edu
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: 2
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 13:11:46 -0500
From: "Nash John" <emailtonash at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Leave request Workflow - WS20000081
To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
Message-ID:
<7169de100611201011o42b6d408k7f3e2d08297a9bc4 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Gopi,
since you are using web, it won't support 'Advance with dialogue'
setting in workflow. though this feature works fine in r/3.
On 12/3/05, GopiMunagala <gopi_20us at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> Any help on my problem will be appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> GS
>
> --- GopiMunagala <gopi_20us at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Bodo,
> >
> > Thanks for your help. I could able to debug the transaction
> > WS20000081. When I supply work item and web_flag. It brought me a
> > screen for approve/reject/cancel. When I approve system brought me
> > another screen to cinfirm. Once I confirm workflow completed. I
> > checked logs also. everything looks fine.
> >
> > But when I do the same from manager inbox once I approve I am not
> > getting confirm screen. Once I back out from screen it automatically
> > completing the workflow. I don't know why.
> >
> > When I do the same from portal I am not getting the confirmation
> > screen. I think something is not working as designed. I am really
> > wondering why I am not getting the confirm screen online. Any
> > suggestions appreciated.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > GS
> >
> > --- "LANGE, BODO" <bodo.lange at sap.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi GopiMunagala,
> > > Try calling it from transaction SE93.
> > >
> > > Bodo
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu
> > > [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of GopiMunagala
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 10:57 PM
> > > To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
> > > Subject: RE: Leave request Workflow - WS20000081
> > >
> > > Hi Bodo,
> > >
> > > The service file has WEB_FLAG set 'X'. I did get
> > the
> > > work item and called the internet transaction in
> > SAP
> > > R/3 and got the below message back " Transaction
> > > WS20000081 can not be called into Easy Access
> > menu,
> > > see long text". So it looks like I can not debug this.
> > > any further help would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > GS.
> > >
> > > --- "LANGE, BODO" <bodo.lange at sap.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi GopiMunagala,
> > > > This form-based workflow is sensitive to the gui
> > > you
> > > > are using. Consider that when you are logging on
> > > the
> > > > System, you are calling the approval transaction
> > > via
> > > > your Inbox, which starts or completes the
> > > workflow,
> > > > usually you are getting right to the Form or approval. The same
> > > > thing might not happen when
> > you
> > > > do this from the Web. You usually set a flag to
> > > tell
> > > > the System that you are logging in from the Web
> > or
> > > > the ITS (in your ITS service file set the
> > WEB_FLAG
> > > > X). So the system is aware of you using a
> > > different
> > > > interface, passing parameters via the ITS. What
> > > you
> > > > could do is get your work-item ID and launch the transaction
> > > > that is created in the R/3 system, Dynpro 50 will ask you a
> > > > workitem and a Flag.
> > Just
> > > > give the system the workitem ID of the approval
> > > task
> > > > waiting in the managers inbox and flag the
> > > WEB_FLAG
> > > > field. You should be able to reproduce the malfunctioning and
> > > > maybe understand better why
> > > this
> > > > is happening.
> > > >
> > > > Have a look at the dynpro 0050 of the Workflow Transaction
> > > > generated in the Standard.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > bodo
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu
> > > > [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of GopiMunagala
> > > > Sent: gioved? 1 dicembre 2005 19:22
> > > > To: SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> > > > Subject: Leave request Workflow - WS20000081
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I have an issue while executing ESS employee
> > leave
> > > > request(WS20000081). The problem is when
> > employee
> > > > creates leave request through ESS, it goes to
> > his
> > > > manager. If logon to R/3 as his manager and
> > > approve
> > > > the leave request through R/3 workplace and back
> > > out
> > > > from that screen. This scenario working fine.
> > When
> > > I
> > > > do the same thing from his manager portal. When
> > I
> > > > press "Approve" button, got message saying "Information sent
> > > > successfully". I pressed the button OK, then press button
> > > > "Quit". The workflow is
> > > still
> > > > sitting at managers inbox. I don't know why this
> > > is
> > > > not working from portal. The same thing is
> > working
> > > > inside R/3. Any help would be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance.
> > > > GS.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> > > > http://mail.yahoo.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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home
> > page!
> > >
> > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________
> > Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
> > Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> > dsl.yahoo.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SAP-WUG mailing list
> > SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
> Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> dsl.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20061120/511b2cb7/a
ttachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:27:37 -0800
From: "Baunach, Natasha R" <natasha.r.baunach at intel.com>
Subject: RE: SRM 4.0 (EBP 5.0) - Line Item SC approval, Completion
requiredfor new Line
To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
Message-ID:
<18F351EE5A61F442B66FA9240229C2B2CB9E2F at orsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I heard the same rumor as well.
-----Original Message-----
From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf
Of Susan R. Keohan
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 6:56 AM
To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
Subject: Re: SRM 4.0 (EBP 5.0) - Line Item SC approval, Completion
requiredfor new Line
Thanks Mark!
Interesting rumor... Hmmm.
Mark Pyc wrote:
> G'day Sue,
>
> It is indeed. OSS some times seems to choke a bit, and it may well
turn
> up again tomorrow.
>
> See below for the limited detail it offers.
>
> Also heard an interesting rumour on the grapevine yesterday. In the
next
> version of SRM ( 6.0 ) they are getting rid of n-step BAdI entirely
with
> no upgrade path. Apparently it will all be configurable. Sounds too
good
> to be true and I bet it is.
>
> Have fun,
> Mark
>
>
> Symptom
>
> Only after changes are made to the price and the quantity does the
> requester receive a work item to accept the changes.
>
> Other terms
>
> WS14500015 LIA, line item based, RESTARTAPPROVALSTEP, TS14508045
>
> Reason and Prerequisites
>
> The line item-based approval workflow is used. The requester is
checked
> only if an approver has changed the value of the shopping cart.
>
> For changes that do not affect the value, a work item is not created
for
> the requester. A workflow restart is not requested as described in
Note
> 777133, but the requester in the current workflow is asked to accept.
>
> Solution
>
> Implement the BBP_WFL_EMPL_WI_BADI BAdI.
>
> * The BAdI is not provided in the IMG, but if it is activated it
is
> successfully called.
>
> Implement the BAdI using Transactions SE18, SE19.
>
> * In the CHECK_REQUESTER_WI method you can set the following
> parameters:
>
> SEND_TO_REQUESTER creates work item for requester
>
> OVERWRITE_SYST_BEHAVIOUR activates change to the standard
> behavior
>
>
>
>
> On 11/20/06, *Susan R. Keohan* <keohan at ll.mit.edu
> <mailto:keohan at ll.mit.edu> > wrote:
>
> Hi Mark, Miguel,
>
> Can you confirm that the OSS note you refer to here is 838575 ? I
am
> searching OSS for docu on the BADI BBP_WFL_EMPL_WI_BADI and can't
find
> anything. This note appears to have gone into hiding.
>
> On the other hand, if anyone even has the German docu for this
BADI, can
> you please send it along ? My German is good enough that I can
usually
> decipher the big words.
>
> Thanks!
> Sue
>
> Mark Pyc wrote:
> > Thanks again Miguel.
> >
> > That's amazing! That note answers my question from a month ago
> exactly
> > and I was stunned that I hadn't found it, but it doesn't like
to be
> > found. I just tried searching OSS for both "WS14500015" and
> > "BBP_WFL_EMPL_WI_BADI" and in neither case is it returned
despite the
> > fact that both terms appear in the note. I wonder how often
that
> happens
> > and useful notes choose not to be found. Strange.
> >
> > Have fun,
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > On 7/20/06, *Adao-Cruz, Miguel* <
miguel.adao-cruz at capgemini.com
> <mailto:miguel.adao-cruz at capgemini.com>
> > <mailto:miguel.adao-cruz at capgemini.com
> <mailto:miguel.adao-cruz at capgemini.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I once used this BADI. See OSS note 838575.
> >
> > Code:
> > method IF_EX_BBP_WFL_EMPL_WI_BADI~CHECK_REQUESTER_WI.
> >
> > send_to_requester = 'X'.
> >
> > overwrite_syst_behaviour = ' '.
> >
> > endmethod
> >
> > Not sure that's really necessary.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________
___
>
> >
> > Miguel Adao-Cruz | Capgemini | London
> > Technology Services
> > SAP Application Architect
> >
> > T.+44-870-238-2927 | Int.700 2927 | www.capgemini.com
> <http://www.capgemini.com/>
> > <http://www.capgemini.com <http://www.capgemini.com/>>
> > <
> >
>
file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\madaocru\Application%20Data\Micros
oft
>
> > \Signatures\www.capgemini.com>
> >
> > Join the Collaborative Business Experience
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________
___
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu
> <mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu> <mailto: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu
> <mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu>> on
> > behalf of Mark Pyc
> > Sent: Wed 19/07/2006 15:01
> > To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
> > Subject: Re: SRM 4.0 (EBP 5.0) - Line Item SC
> approval,Completion
> > required
> > for new Line
> >
> >
> > Thanks Miguel, although not what I wanted to hear really.
It is
> > possible to
> > add incomplete items to a cart in process, so I guess I'll
> have to
> > prevent
> > it via BBP_DOC_CHECK_BADI.
> >
> > On a side note has anyone made use of the BAdI
> BBP_WFL_EMPL_WI_BADI? It
> > doesn't come with any doco and I can't find a reference to
it
> > anywhere (WUG,
> > SDN, OSS, Google). It does however seem to answer my
original
> > question about
> > how to send all changes back to the Requestor.
> >
> > Have fun,
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > On 7/19/06, Adao-Cruz, Miguel
<miguel.adao-cruz at capgemini.com
> <mailto:miguel.adao-cruz at capgemini.com>
> > <mailto: miguel.adao-cruz at capgemini.com
> <mailto:miguel.adao-cruz at capgemini.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Mark, OSS is right in saying it shouldn't, at least
> according to
> > their
> > design. Business/process side it could be disputed
but
> SAP cannot
> > provide
> > scenarios for all options (it is already quite
> complicated
> > this way
> > ;-).
> > In my last two implementations I used the shopping
> cart Line Item
> > approval
> > workflow. You could try to make it work this way but
I
> can
> > already
> > garantee
> > you weeks of pain!
> > Because:
> > - The line item workflow is hard coded in the SAP
> standard code.
> > - Sometimes it is directly triggered by a WAPI
function.
> > -->That's why it is not possible to create a Z copy
of
> this
> > template
> > and
> > used it (-->deadlines cannot be created the standard
way)
> > - I don't have a system to check, but I dont' think
> that while in
> > approval
> > process the system will allow you to add incomplete
> items -->
> > you
> > would need
> > to at least use BADI for the check function
> > - I don't think you can start a completion workflow
for a
> > shopping
> > cart in
> > approval process because of the internal status
> management (I
> > don't
> > even
> > think about trying to change this!)
> > - The approval preview pane would be a mess with a
> shopping cart
> > going for
> > completion, then approval, then completion again,
then
> approval
> > again!!
> > - Your time from shopping cart creation to PO output
> could become
> > weeks.
> > - ....
> >
> > I heard that others implementations (not done by
me)
> in some
> > clients, to
> > comply with EU directives about tenders, run the
> completion
> > workflow
> > (again?) after the approval. But, I never
investigated
> it and
> > anyway
> > that's
> > maybe not good for your client neither.
> >
> > I would simply recommend:
> > - Approver to reject/delete shopping cart with a
note
> to the
> > creator
> > explaining why and the creator to recreate a new
shopping
> > cart with
> > the
> > additional incomplete line(s) (copying from the
> initial shopping
> > cart).
> > - The approver to create another shopping cart with
the
> > additional
> > incomplete items (or ask the creator to create it)
> while the
> > first
> > shopping
> > cart follows its approval process.
> >
> > Hope it will help.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________
___
>
> >
> > Miguel Adao-Cruz | Capgemini | London
> > Technology Services
> > SAP Application Architect
> >
> > T.+44-870-238-2927 | Int.700 2927 |
www.capgemini.com
> <http://www.capgemini.com/>
> > < http://www.capgemini.com <http://www.capgemini.com/>>
> > < http://www.capgemini.com/>
> > <
> >
>
file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\madaocru\Application%20Data\Micros
oft
> >
>
<file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\madaocru\Application%20Data\Micro
soft
> >
> >
>
<file:///,DanaInfo=owa+C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\madaocru\Applicatio
n%20
> > Data\Microsoft>
> > \Signatures\www.capgemini.com>
> >
> > Join the Collaborative Business Experience
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________
___
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu
> <mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu>
> > <mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu
> <mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu>> on behalf of Mark Pyc
> > Sent: Wed 19/07/2006 09:01
> > To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
> > Subject: SRM 4.0 (EBP 5.0) - Line Item SC
> approval,Completion
> > required for
> > new Line
> >
> >
> > G'day all,
> >
> > Firstly thanks Miguel for your response. I've been
> distracted
> > for a
> > while
> > and have since been testing alternative concepts. I
agree
> > with you
> > that
> > using standard completion (well modified std as
you've
> described)
> > does seem
> > the best option and I've gone through some redesign
> with the
> > business to
> > make this a possible solution.
> >
> > However now comes the next hurdle....
> >
> > Can anyone confirm if they are using the Completion
> Workflow
> > WS14000044 (or
> > modified copy) and the Line Item approval Workflow
> WS14500015?
> > (Miguel I
> > wasn't sure if from the answer below you were using
> Line Item or
> > just the
> > BAdI cart level).
> >
> > When an incomplete item is added to the cart during
> line item
> > approval does
> > the Completion WF get invoked again?
> >
> > I believe it should. OSS are telling me it
shouldn't.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/6/06, Adao-Cruz, Miguel <
> miguel.adao-cruz at capgemini.com
<mailto:miguel.adao-cruz at capgemini.com>
> > <mailto: miguel.adao-cruz at capgemini.com
> <mailto:miguel.adao-cruz at capgemini.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > My solution works the way you describe it
(all
> users with
> > level 2).
> > It is
> > standard.
> > Depending on BBP_WFL_SECURITY value the main
> workflow is
> > restarted
> > or not (I
> > think it as well check starts conditions) if
> shopping cart
> > "changed",
> > "Changed" here means, changes according to
SRM (I
> > believe)
> > hard-coded
> > criterias which are more or less related to
> line item
> > values.
> > Main
> > workflow
> > restarted means re-processing previously
processed
> > approval
> > levels.
> > It
> > doesn't directly influence if shopping cart
is
> sent to
> > requester and
> > which
> > type of changes should send it to requestor
to
> accept
> > changes.
> > If you are planning to use first approval
level
> for
> > completion it
> > means that
> > the price and/or the vendor will be missing
> (standard
> > understanding
> > of SRM
> > for incomplete shopping carts). Adding the
> price will send
> > the SC to
> > the
> > requester. The problem will be that adding a
vendor
> > does not
> > send SC
> > to
> > requester (pay attention to the distention
between
> > "vendor"
> > and
> > "preferred
> > vendor", usually approvers cannot add
"vendors").
> > I would have a look at shopping cart change
> documents
> > settings:
> > maybe it
> > influences the way SRM sees a shopping cart
being
> > changed.
> > You could maybe increase the value of the
line
> item by one
> > cent if
> > the
> > vendor is changed/added, via a BADI and then
> remove it. (I
> > already
> > regret
> > what I have just writen!!)
> > You could maybe use the BADI for
> BBP_WFL_SECURITY, and
> > change
> > it's
> > value
> > depending on the user role and approval
index.
> > etc...
> > But before going this way you could maybe
> explain what
> > are
> > your
> > client
> > requirements that make the standard
completion
> > workflow not
> > usable.
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________
___
> >
> > Miguel Adao-Cruz | Capgemini | London
> > Technology Services
> > SAP Application Architect
> >
> > T.+44-870-238-2927 | Int.700 2927 |
> www.capgemini.com <http://www.capgemini.com/>
> > <http://www.capgemini.com <http://www.capgemini.com/>>
> > < http://www.capgemini.com/>
> > < http://www.capgemini.com/>
> > <
> >
> >
>
file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\madaocru\Application%20Data\Micros
oft
>
> >
>
<file:///,DanaInfo=owa+C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\madaocru\Applicatio
n%20
> > Data\Microsoft>
> >
> >
>
<file:///,DanaInfo=owa+C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\madaocru\Applicatio
n%20
>
> >
> > Data\Microsoft>
> > \Signatures\www.capgemini.com,DanaInfo=
> > OWA.UKI.CAPGEMINI.COM+>
> >
> > Join the Collaborative Business Experience
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________
___
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu
> <mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu>
> > <mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu
> <mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu>> on behalf of Mark Pyc
> > Sent: Mon 05/06/2006 18:08
> > To: WUG
> > Subject: SRM 4.0 (EBP 5.0) - Logic of LIA
BADI so
> > requestor
> > approves
> >
> > allchanges
> >
> >
> > G'day all,
> >
> > More questions from me on the line-item
approval of
> > Shopping
> > carts
> > I'm
> > afraid.
> >
> > Within my required solution the first level
> approvers
> > needs
> > the
> > ability to
> > change carts but the requester should be
given the
> > opportunity to
> > review
> > these changes.
> >
> > Access to change the cart is controlled via
> > Personalisation
> > Level
> > BBP_WFL_SECURITY. I figured that a value of 2
> would be
> > appropriate
> > as this
> > is described as "Low - Workflow is always
> restarted when
> > changes are
> > made".
> > However with this setting if the Approver
actually
> > "Accepts/Approves" a line
> > and changes it, the only time the requester
is
> > informed is if
> > the
> > value of
> > the item changes. At this point the requester
> receives a
> > Workitem
> > based on
> > TS14508045 (from within WS14500013) to
accept.
> >
> > No other changes produce this behaviour.
Rather the
> > changes
> > are
> > simply made
> > and the cart approval continues. Changes to
> Free Text
> > description
> > (in the
> > case of Describe Requirement items),
Prod.Cat, UoM,
> > Delivery
> > Date,
> > Delivery
> > Address, Price & Qty (such that the value of
> the item
> > doesn't
> >
> > change) or
> > even changing the name of the cart do not
> seemed to be
> > considered
> > 'significant' as the requester is not
informed.
> Only
> > if the
> > value of
> > the
> > item changes.
> >
> > What I'd like is for any and all of these
> changes to
> > result
> > in the
> > Cart
> > being sent back to the requester. It seems
very
> > strange that
> > the
> > value of
> > the item is the only important change. The
> requester
> > doesn't
> > necessarily
> > care if the value changes as long as it's
> approved, but a
> > change to
> > the text
> > of a free text item has to be considered
crucial!?!
> >
> > As an alternate concept I thought about
simply
> using
> > the BAdI
> > to set
> > the
> > requester as an approver for any changed
items,
> but they
> > would then
> > need to
> > reject any items they weren't happy with and
> then accept
> > their own
> > rejections (not very nice at all). Moving in
this
> > direction I
> > set
> > the
> > Approvers value for BBP_WFL_SECURITY to 4
> (which is
> > described
> > as
> > "High -
> > workflow is never restarted when changes are
> made" but
> > this
> > seemed
> > to be no
> > different to a value of 2. Changes that
change the
> > line item
> > value
> > are sent
> > back for Requester review. This is messy as
it
> means
> > that my
> > concept
> > of
> > Requester as Approver will not be consistent
as
> value
> > changes
> > will
> > result in
> > the TS14508045 Workitems.
> >
> >
> > Is there a way to force any and all changes
> back to the
> > Requester
> > for
> > review?
> >
> > I have read note 777133 about handling
> restarts, but
> > as best
> > I can
> > tell this
> > restarts the approvals, but does not invoke a
> Requester
> > review.
> >
> > In reading the archives I saw a posting by
Miguel
> > Adao-Cruz
> > that
> > included
> > the statement:
> > > I am not using "restart based on history
> tables" as my
> > client
> > wants
> > rejections to be approved by requestors.
> >
> > It sounds like you were doing what I'm hoping
for
> > Miguel. Can
> > you
> > provide
> > any insight? I'm hoping to use the first
level of
> > approval as
> > a
> > means of
> > line-item based completion (thanks for your
> previous
> > responses).
> >
> > I hope someone can help.
> >
> > Have fun,
> > Mark
> >
> >
_______________________________________________
> > SAP-WUG mailing list
> > SAP-WUG at mit.edu <mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu>
> <mailto: SAP-WUG at mit.edu <mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu>>
> >
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
> <http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug>
> > <http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
> <http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SAP-WUG mailing list
> > SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> <mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu><mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> <mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu>>
> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SAP-WUG mailing list
> > SAP-WUG at mit.edu <mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu> <mailto:
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu <mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu>>
> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SAP-WUG mailing list
> > SAP-WUG at mit.edu <mailto: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
> Phone: 781-981-3561
> Fax: 781-981-1607
> keohan at ll.mit.edu <mailto:keohan at ll.mit.edu>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu <mailto: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
--
Susan R. Keohan
SAP Workflow Developer
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood Street
LI-200
Lexington, MA. 02420
Phone: 781-981-3561
Fax: 781-981-1607
keohan at ll.mit.edu
_______________________________________________
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 24, Issue 61
***************************************
More information about the SAP-WUG
mailing list