Node invalidates the Block Structure required

[Mike Gambier]

Mike,
 
This seems to be a 4.6c+ problem with several OSS Messages and fixes for errant WF Builder behaviour.
 
In my case we have 4.6c WF Definitions that compile perfectly well but fall foul of a bug in ECC 6 with internal validation of VOID steps. When you click on the warning message in SWDD the transaction dumps if the step is of type 'undefined'.
 
I have had to apply OSS Note 1077505 to our ECC 6 development environment and gone through 100+ definitions, performing Block Corrections on about 30 inside SWDD with the fix in place. This resolves the problem, presumably by adding the appropriate 'X' value somewhere in the Workflow tables. So that's good :)
 
But the reason I asked here was that I thought that some smart person had found another way of doing this outside of SWDD...
 
Oh well, I'll bring it up as an issue next week when we have the SAP Workflow Head gurus over for a pow-wow.
 
Regards,
 
Mike GT> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:10:49 +0100> Subject: RE: RFC error in SWEQADM - Event Delivery> From: wug at workflowconnections.com> To: sap-wug at mit.edu> > Hi Mike,> > I don't recall seeing the post you mention, but I've learnt over the years> that it's good to generate new versions along the way. I've also learnt> that whenever I encounter a WF corruption it's quicker to not waste time> researching but just copy and redo an older version or rebuild the> workflow.> > By staying in the same SWDD session and switching between flows you can> copy/paste the individual steps from one WF to another and the whole> process is not as painful as it sounds.> > However I would be interested in hearing if there is another way to> correct dodgy templates...> > Cheers,> Mike> > On Thu, July 17, 2008 11:16 am, Mike Gambier wrote:> >> > Hi,> >> > Can someone remind of the trick to fix the 'This node violates the block> > structure required' (WD:344) syntax error in WF definitions in ECC 6?> >> > I tried the usual 'SWDD->Extras->Special Functions->Block Correction'> > approach but as explained in OSS Message 1077505 I get the STEP_NOT_FOUND> > dump. The nodes that SWDD is complaining about are void/blank nodes.> >> > I'm pretty sure someone here mentioned an SW* Transaction that could bump> > the definition and solve this, but I have no desire to trawl through all> > of the posts to find it...> >> > Regards,> >> > Mike GT> > _________________________________________________________________> > 100’s of Nikon cameras to be won with Live Search> > http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719808/direct/01/_______________________________________________> > 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
_________________________________________________________________
Find the best and worst places on the planet
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719807/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20080717/2a42fe85/attachment.htm