Binding issues after transport to production

[Carolyn Fuller]

Jocelyn,

When we upgraded to ECC 6.0 a little over a year ago, I did not  
convert our existing workflow templates to use XML persistence.  
Therefore their profiles are all set as "Compatibility." I compared  
our container handling between development  and production via  
transaction SWU_CONT_PERSISTENCE. But this seems to be used to  
maintain the outdated "Structure" mode configuration. The table is  
empty in both environments. Is there another transaction I should run  
to check container handling?

We have reports that read workflow containers which is one of the  
reasons I chose not to convert. It is my understanding that converting  
to XML persistence means I would need to change these reports. Since  
we weren't experiencing performance or storage concerns I didn't have  
the incentive to convert. Also, wouldn't I need to change all the  
business object container operations if we converted?

A lot of these old custom workflow templates created by the non- 
workflow developer caused us heartaches during our upgrade to ECC 6.0,  
which is how I discovered some of his unorthodox practices, but they  
are all working smoothly now.

Carolyn


On Feb 11, 2009, at 7:28 PM, Dart, Jocelyn wrote:

> Carolyn - just a thought - check in your workflow admin settings that
> both systems are set up with the same container handling (XML) and
> persistency rules.   Also if you aren't already doing this... make  
> sure
> your test scripts for QA always include a test on workflow instances
> that was created and running before your changes were applied.  It can
> be worthwhile deliberately creating workflow instances for this  
> purpose
> before importing your changes into QA.
> Regards,
> Jocelyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sap-wug-bounces at MIT.EDU [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at MIT.EDU] On  
> Behalf
> Of Carolyn Fuller
> Sent: Thursday, 12 February 2009 11:05 AM
> To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
> Subject: Re: Binding issues after transport to production
>
> Alon,
>
> Yes. We modified the workflow binding in production in order to fix
> the problems that appeared in production but did not appear in either
> QA or development.
>
> Carolyn
> On Feb 11, 2009, at 4:16 PM, Alon Raskin wrote:
>
>> Just to clarify, you are modifying the workflows directly in the
>> production system?
>>
>> Alon Raskin
>> e: araskin at 3i-consulting.com
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Carolyn Fuller
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:17 PM
>> To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
>> Subject: Binding issues after transport to production
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On a couple of occasions I've moved modified workflows from our
>> development environment to our QA environment with no problems only  
>> to
>> encounter binding issues in production. On these occasions, deleting
>> the bindings in production and re-creating them in production has
>> solved the problem.
>>
>> Are these issues due to the fact that I didn't run SWU_OBUF after the
>> transports went in? Should SWU_OBUF be on our action log when  
>> modified
>> workflows go into production?
>>
>> ---
>> Carolyn Fuller
>> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>> Information Services and Technology
>> Administrative Computing
>> Senior Analyst/ Programmer
>> (617) 253-6213
>> http://fuller.mit.edu/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20090212/b1cce530/attachment.htm