ECC 6.0 Upgrade - Processing work items from old environment

Thu Mar 6 05:53:47 EST 2008

Zack,

One you thing you might want to try is adjusting the step binding configuration (SWD_BINDEF) for the step(s) that is/are failing the new syntax checks for the version of the 'old' version of the Workflow. If it's something as simple as changing the reference structure or field for the data element then this could save you. I'd be very interested to know if this works :)

The comment in the white paper aboud 'completing all running workflow instances' before upgrading, whilst logical, isn't really practical when you're dealing with a large-sized production system I'm afraid. We've heeded the warning and are conducting what we call 'inflight Workflow' tests on our instances to see if they can survive the shift to the new workflow landscape. Of course there's always a risk that we could end up with lots of instances completely stuck because of something we haven't spotted.

Personally I would leave the version of the Workflow alone unless you are absolutely sure no other differences between the 'new' active version and the 'old' instance version which might cause you problems (such as completely different binding).

Regards,

Mike GT> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:54:35 -0800> From: sapedi2000 at yahoo.com> Subject: RE: ECC 6.0 Upgrade - Processing work items from old environment> To: sap-wug at mit.edu> > 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> > > > _______________________________________________> SAP-WUG mailing list> SAP-WUG at mit.edu> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20080306/52db065c/attachment.htm