ECC 6.0 Upgrade - Processing work items from old environment

[Zack P]

Hi James, We did fix the workflow templates and while
doing so created new versions. My question has to do
with what happens to the pre-upgrade work items for
these WF templates when we go live with ECC 6.0.

I see the following in an ASUG presentation on
preparing for ECC 6.0 upgrade "Before the upgrade -
Comlete all running workflow instances". This would
solve the problem but I am not sure that this will be
possible at all times/at all clients (specially if
there is a huge volume of active workflows). 

One solution could be to do a direct update to table
SWP_HEADER to change the version to point to the most
current, but that will probably be the last option.

Regards,
Zack



--- James J Seiter <james.j.seiter at us.ibm.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>