ECC 6.0 SWW_CONTOB Logical System name not being updated properly

[Mike Gambier]

Check the release status of that FM Alon...
 
Guess what? They have abandoned it now, it's no longer supported :(
 
They kept that quiet... Anyone using it should switch to the WAPI immediately, apparently. It is mentioned in some of their Workflow related release notes, but only as a footnote.
 
Guess they couldn't be bothered to make it work with the new correlation stuff and the OO container. Which is shame as it was so easy to call and use in Check FMs.
 
MGT


From: araskin at 3i-consulting.comTo: sap-wug at mit.eduDate: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:22:07 -0400Subject: RE: ECC 6.0 SWW_CONTOB Logical System name not being updated properly



What a sucky response. 
 
I think this field is by FM CHECK_OBJECT_KEY_IN_WF which is kind of important? If they aren't going to ensure that this field is populated all the time then tell them to fix the code in FM CHECK_OBJECT_KEY_IN_WF.


 


From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Gambier [madgambler at hotmail.com]Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 12:11 PMTo: SAP Workflow Users' GroupSubject: RE: ECC 6.0 SWW_CONTOB Logical System name not being updated properly

Official response from SAP on this one seems to be:
Yes, there may well be a problem updating this field, but frankly we don't care because you shouldn't be looking in that table anyway, and you are very naughty for not using our WAPIs!Nice one SAP. Okay, so I made that last part up, but OSS Message 1153860 reads a bit like that :) I have no idea if this is going to cause any of you any grief, but those of you intending to continue using the 'old' container tables might want to keep an eye out for general instantiation problems with Business Objects that can't seem to be explained.Regards, Mike GT


From: madgambler at hotmail.comTo: sap-wug at mit.eduSubject: RE: ECC 6.0 SWW_CONTOB Logical System name not being updated properlyDate: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:08:33 +0000

We too are on patch level 13. Our development system clearly shows LOGSYS values appearing regular as clockwork before the upgrade and now only occasionally after the upgrade, which is most odd.It kind of implies a deep-down MOVE statement or something not working properly to my mind.  Probably a unicode bug or something...will see what SAP have to say. MGT


From: araskin at 3i-consulting.comTo: sap-wug at mit.eduDate: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:49:19 -0400Subject: RE: ECC 6.0 SWW_CONTOB Logical System name not being updated properly




Hi Mikey,
 
I just took a look at our sandbox and I see a logical system in most of our entries. We are on ECC 6.0 patch level 13.
 
Out of approximately 200K entries in this table, I did find approximately 9K entries without LogSys including _WORKITEM entries. 
I am honestly not sure why some do and some don't. Maybe others have an idea?
 
Oh and you are so old school for using that table (though I do understand why)  :-)
 
Alon


 
 


From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Gambier [madgambler at hotmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:30 AMTo: SAP Workflow Users' GroupSubject: ECC 6.0 SWW_CONTOB Logical System name not being updated properly

Hi, Has anyone else noticed or seen evidence of the 'old' Workflow Container table (SWW_CONTOB) not being updated properly where the Logical System name field (LOGSYS) is concerned? I'm a little bit worried that this field is only sometimes being updated when entries are being added. Our 'new' Workflow instances do not appear to be updating this field when creating new entries, although any triggering event container instances do have their proper logical system name values.So, for example, '_WORKITEM' entries are being created with a blank value for LOGSYS (which just isn't right) whereas any importing container elements definitely do have a kosher value. This is causing us some grief with FMs like CHECK_OBJECT_IN_WF because the standard SAP code is looking for a like-for-like match with whatever value you pass through in OBJECT-LOGSYS. I'm going to trawl through OSS but I thought I'd ask around to see if this is a 'known' feature. I'd like to ask anybody else who is currently working on an upgrade project to check out their SWW_CONTOB entries too (that is if they still intend to use the old tables) and let me know if they have this problem at all, or whether it's just our system misbehaving :) Regards, Mike GT

Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades! 

She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star! 

She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star! 
_________________________________________________________________
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/20080320/4df39469/attachment.htm