Workflow Upgrade issues (4.6c to ECC 6)

Tue Jun 17 12:46:25 EDT 2008

Hi Mike,

Could you elaborate on the painful stuff you were confronted by?

Regards

Gijs Houtzagers

Principal Consultant

Kirkman Company B.V.

Amsterdamsestraatweg 40

3743 DT  Baarn

The Netherlands

T +31 (0)88 40 40 400

F +31 (0)88 40 40 499

www.kirkmancompany.com

------------------------------------------------------

The information contained in this message 

may be confidential and is intended to be 

exclusively for the addressee. Should you 

receive this message unintentionally, you are 

kindly requested not to make any use 

whatsoever of the contents. Please notify

the sender by return e-mail and delete 

the material from any computer.

---------------------------------------------------- 

  _____  

From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of
Mike Gambier
Sent: dinsdag 17 juni 2008 17:12
To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
Subject: Workflow Upgrade issues (4.6c to ECC 6)

Hi,

We're currently struggling through a rather painful upgrade process from
4.6c to ECC 6 and we've hit a few Workflow mines.

Despite several high priority OSS Messages the end result from SAP so far as
been a fairly poor acknowledgement of issues that need to be addressed
manually, culminating in OSS Note 1175535.

Basically we have 4 known faults at the moment. Two relating to changes not
coming across from 4.6c into ECC 6 based around Workflow Container Elements
and Event Linkages, which I can quite understand as the target tables ahve
shifted in ECC 6. But the other two point to problems in SAP's 'mapping'
process where they convert 4.6c (or older) definitions into ECC 6 syntax
(Kernel 700+).

These issues are:

1. Multiline Table handling - to use these properly in loops and dynamic
steps it seems you now have to use a new &WF_PARFOREACH_INDEX& element that
only becomes available after 4.6c

They did suggest trying a dodgy binding switch as implemented by OSS Message
1083317, which mostly works for active instances but only as long as the
'Change Release' value on the WF version remains equal to or lower than
'46C'. Not all that useful if the instances are on the current active
version and that definition is then activated in the ECC 6 environment. But
that doesn't actually fix the definition syntax going forward anyway.

2. Condition binding after 4.6c introduces a {TYPE=...} additional statement
in SWDSCONDEF so that, for example, a hard-coded string like '31.12.9999'
can be converted into a date variable at runtime to compare against an
object date property. Prior to 4.6c this statement did not exist. Now it is
required or else the binding is considered to be erroneous and a syntax
error will result.

Has anyone esle come across upgrade-related issues other than these?

Regards,

Mike GT

  _____  

Get 5GB of online storage for free! Get it Now!
<http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000005ukm/direct/01/> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20080617/de37e8e7/attachment.htm