ECC 6.0 Upgrade - Processing work items from old environment

Wed Mar 5 17:02:39 EST 2008

Zack,

Having similar issues in regard to review of workflow logs for pre-upgrade 
workitems.

Your comment of  'We fixed these by correcting the container definitions 
to reference the appropriate
data dictionary elements/object types.'

When the pre-upgrade incorrect versions of the workflow templates were 
corrected, did this not generate 'new versions' of the templates?  If so, 
then how are the pre-upgrade workitems going to be linked to the new 
corrected versions.  Or can the templates be corrected and given the same 
version numbers via generation so that they then linked back up properly?

Zack P <sapedi2000 at yahoo.com> 
Sent by: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu
03/05/2008 02:03 PM
Please respond to
"SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>

To
"SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
cc

Subject
RE: ECC 6.0 Upgrade - Processing work items from old environment

Hi Mike,

The errors that showed up in ECC 6.0 environment were
related to binding definitions that did not cause
problems in 46C. Doing a syntax check in SWDD shows
these errors. We fixed these by correcting the
container definitions to reference the appropriate
data dictionary elements/object types. 

Regards,
Zack

--- Mike Gambier <madgambler at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Ouch. That's not good news. We will going through
> the same pain in a few months time, again with
> millions.
> 
> I presume the binding problems are a result of the
> version-dependent settings (of whatever Workflow
> definition the Work Items belong to) not matching
> the stricter rules imposed by the new Workflow
> environment in ECC 6.0?
> 
> Have you checked that the DDIC data element or
> structure involved is actually active? We've noticed
> that several large tables that we know have been
> changed were not activated properly and present in
> the runtime environemnt in their new format, despite
> DDIC saying they were active. It took us a few
> manual bumps and a couple of SWU_OBUFs to actually
> persuade one particular step to accept that a
> parameter it was using was the correct length.
> 
> If you tried to display the definition now using
> SWDD or SWUD does the builder highlight the
> problematic elements or binding issues?
> 
> Have you considered checking the binding settings in
> SWD_BINDEF for the version of the Workflow
> definition that is causing the problem? Perhaps by
> 'adjusting' the values in the table to point to a
> valid/active DDIC structure the runtime syntax error
> could be avoided?
> 
> By the way, we noticed that several 'old' 4.6c
> condition steps (e.g. date constants like
> '31.12.9999' as a characeter string for example)
> would have to be re-entered again in SWDD before
> they would be deemed acceptable by the builder.
> Presumably because the new builder does something a
> little bit more/differently than the old one,
> allowing the 'old' value to pass whatever validation
> it failed before.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike GT> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:30:14 -0800> From:
> sapedi2000 at yahoo.com> Subject: ECC 6.0 Upgrade -
> Processing work items from old environment> To:
> sap-wug at mit.edu> > Hello,> > Upgarding to ECC 6.0
> from 4.6C. In the development> box, we found that
> some workflow templates failed> syntax check due to
> stricter enforcement of data types> bindings. We
> fixed these issues in the development> environment.>
> > Question 1) What happens to work items created in
> 46C> after the upgrade? Should they continue to
> process in> ECC6.0 without issues?> > Question 2)
> What happens to work items created in 46C> for the
> WF templates which failed the syntax check in> ECC
> 6.0 (we have millions) when we go live? I>
> understand that a workflow instance always refers
> to> the version of the WF template that it was
> created in> and not to the latest version. Does that
> mean that> when we go-live, the work items that
> exist that were> created in 4.6C would be referring
> to the older (46C)> version of the workflow
> templates rather than the> newest version (ECC6.0)
> where the syntax issue was> fixed. Do they then
> fail?> > Any input into how to fix this potential
> issue would> be helpful!> > Thanks,> Zack>
> _______________________________________________>
> SAP-WUG mailing list> SAP-WUG at mit.edu>
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox. 
> http://www.searchgamesbox.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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20080305/afa1d6dd/attachment.htm