Error when defining successor for node
Carolyn Fuller
fuller at MIT.EDU
Mon May 7 17:02:36 EDT 2007
Paul,
There isn't a BDC error that I know of. At least I know that the
documents are posted successfully.
I don't know why there is such a difference between the COMMIT WORK
timing in production and our test environments but it caused another
problem with one of our asynchronous tasks after going live with
ERP2005.
I will know for sure whether removing the unnecessary workflow code
from the web application fixes the production problem on Friday. That
is the earliest this code can go into production.
Carolyn
On May 7, 2007, at 4:52 PM, Paul.Bakker at osr.treasury.qld.gov.au wrote:
> Carolyn,
>
> That's a very interesting analysis and definitely worth sharing
> with the
> WUG list.
>
> It may well explain why an unexpected outcome occurs for the workitem
> (e.g., it may be a BDC error!).
>
> But it's not clear to me why it only happens in Production. Why is
> there a
> 'Commit Work delay' in Prod?
>
> If you have systemic differences between Test and Prod, you're in
> for a
> tough time..
>
> cheers
> Paul
>
>
>
> |---------+---------------------------->
> | | Carolyn Fuller |
> | | <fuller at MIT.EDU> |
> | | |
> | | 07/05/2007 21:53 |
> | | |
> |---------+---------------------------->
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------------------------------------------------|
>
> |
> |
> | To: Sriharsha_Medisetty
> <Sriharsha_Medisetty at satyam.com>
> |
> | cc:
> <Paul.Bakker at osr.treasury.qld.gov.au>
> |
> | Subject: Re: Error when defining successor for
> node
> |
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
>
>
> Sri,
>
> I'm working on a theory that might have nothing to do with workflow
> per se. I was not the workflow developer when this workflow was
> implemented at MIT and I did not know anything about the business
> process that the workflow supports. On Thursday I discovered that the
> vast majority of agents who terminate this step do so via a web
> application and that the web application attempts to manually handle
> the workflow instead of allowing the event POSTED or CHANGED to
> automatically handle the workflow. I'm thinking the error might occur
> if the COMMIT WORK from FBV0 takes place after the manual code that
> manually handles the workflow. We have experienced COMMIT WORK
> delays in our production environment that did not occur in our other
> environments. This led to sporadic behavior differences between our
> test environments & our production environment with other
> asynchronous steps.
>
> So I've removed the code that attempts to handle the workflow
> manually. Since this problem does not occur in any environment other
> than production, we won't know if my theory is correct until later
> this week.
>
> Carolyn
>
> On May 3, 2007, at 11:59 PM, Sriharsha_Medisetty wrote:
>
>> Hi Carolan / Paul,
>>
>> I am also getting same error WL411 on 4.7 system " No successor
>> defined
>> for Node XXXXXXX and Result - cancelled by user"
>> In workflow I am maintaining dead line for decision step. After
>> reaching
>> dead line WF has to follow the "Process obsolete" path. But WF is
>> going
>> to error status.
>> I want to know this problem is due to the system configuration or WF
>> design. When we will get this type of error.
>> What may be root cause this one. Give me some details.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sri harsha.M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Carolyn Fuller
>> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 2:34 PM
>> To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
>> Subject: Re: Error when defining successor for node
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> The result is empty!
>>
>> In the event trace log there was a single locked document occurrence
>> during a period when there were dozens of these workflow errors.
>> Documents that caused workflow to end in error were associated with
>> events that looked normal and did not have any error conditions.
>>
>> Carolyn
>>
>> On May 2, 2007, at 6:56 PM, Paul.Bakker at osr.treasury.qld.gov.au
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Carolyn,
>>>
>>> I've seen this error in the past - it was also sporadic. I found
>>> some OSS
>>> notes mentioning this error, but none were applicable to our system.
>>>
>>> Incidentally, the error message text in our (620) system for WL 411
>>> is 'No
>>> successor defined for node &2 and result &3', which may be a better
>>> descriptor of what is really going on.
>>>
>>> As you've probably worked out, the root of the problem is that the
>>> workitem
>>> returns a result which is (apparently!) not one of the defined
>>> outcomes.
>>> The workflow doesn't know which branch to take next, so it
>>> collapses in
>>> heap.
>>>
>>> Can you see in your workflow log what the outcome was for the last
>>> workitem? (Look under the 'Result' column in the technical log).
>>>
>>> Can you investigate how an unexpected outcome may occur (eg due to
>>> some
>>> error condition, like having a locked document)?
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> |---------+---------------------------->
>>> | | Carolyn Fuller |
>>> | | <fuller at MIT.EDU> |
>>> | | Sent by: |
>>> | | sap-wug-bounces at M|
>>> | | IT.EDU |
>>> | | |
>>> | | |
>>> | | 03/05/2007 05:18 |
>>> | | Please respond to|
>>> | | "SAP Workflow |
>>> | | Users' Group" |
>>> | | |
>>> |---------+---------------------------->
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -
>>>> -
>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------|
>>>
>>> |
>>
>>> |
>>> | To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-
>>> wug at MIT.EDU> |
>>> |
>>> cc:
>>
>>> |
>>> | Subject: Error when defining successor for
>>> node |
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -
>>>> -
>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------|
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> MIT has a custom FIPP workflow created under 4.6c that has been
>>> running in production since 2001. There is an asynchronous step with
>>> three possible outcomes. Under 4.6c, this step would successfully
>>> post the document and yet end in error about 1 time out of 500
>>> times
>>> with message WL 411 (Workflow '&' work item &: No successor defined
>>> for event '&').
>>>
>>> After upgrading to ERP2005 (ECC 6.0) the message has changed to SWP
>>> 009 (Error when defining successor for node &1) and instead of
>>> happening once in 500 times, it is happening 1/3 of the time which
>>> results in 300+ errors a day that the workflow administrator must
>>> logically delete.
>>>
>>> Clearly it is a problem that must be addressed now. We can't
>>> reproduce it in any environment except our production environment
>>> which is running on several application servers. We turned the Event
>>> Trace on for FIPP. The workflow error occurred for document
>>> 200950337
>>> at 14:45:37. The event, POSTED, occurred and was successfully
>>> received for this document at 14:45:34. There is no other event
>>> between 14:45:34 & 14:45:57. The 14:45:57 event is for a different
>>> document and a different workflow.
>>>
>>> When I examined the event log for a document whose workflow
>>> completed
>>> with no errors and a document whose workflow ended in error,
>>> there is
>>> absolutely no differences.
>>>
>>> Help! Any ideas on why this is happening?
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Carolyn Fuller
>>> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>>> Information Services and Technology
>>> Administrative Computing
>>> Senior Analyst/ Programmer
>>> (617) 253-6213
>>> http://fuller.mit.edu/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> SAP-WUG mailing list
>>> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ********************************************************************
>>> *
>>> *
>>
>>> ********************************************************************
>>> *
>>> *
>>
>>> **********
>>>
>>> Only an individual or entity who is intended to be a recipient of
>>> this e-mail may access or use the information contained in this e-
>>> mail or any of its attachments. Opinions contained in this e-mail
>>> or any of its attachments do not necessarily reflect the opinions
>>> of Queensland Treasury.
>>>
>>> The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are confidential
>>> and may be legally privileged and the subject of copyright. If you
>>> have received this e-mail in error, please notify Queensland
>>> Treasury immediately and erase all copies of the e-mail and the
>>> attachments. Queensland Treasury uses virus scanning software.
>>> However, it is not liable for viruses present in this e-mail or in
>>> any attachment.
>>>
>>> ********************************************************************
>>> *
>>> *
>>
>>> ********************************************************************
>>> *
>>> *
>>
>>> **********
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> DISCLAIMER:
>> This email (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use
>> of the intended recipient/s and may contain material that is
>> CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVATE COMPANY INFORMATION. Any review or
>> reliance by others or copying or distribution or forwarding of any
>> or all of the contents in this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If
>> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
>> email and delete all copies; your cooperation in this regard is
>> appreciated.
>
>
>
>
---
Carolyn Fuller
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Information Services and Technology
Administrative Computing
Senior Analyst/ Programmer
(617) 253-6213
http://fuller.mit.edu/
More information about the SAP-WUG
mailing list