Binding issues after transport to production

[Mike Gambier]

Carolyn,
 
When we upgraded a month ago I made sure we kept to the 'old' Persistence Profile approach on all of our Workflow definitions by specifically choosing that option in the version independent tab. I went out of my way to ensure we did not have them switch to the 'Compatability' mode as this was a little ambiguous in its behaviour.
 
I say ambiguous because I believe if the 'Create' or 'Change' version of the Workflow (I forget which) is somehow updated to be 'more recent' than '640' the system will start to treat it as if it used the XML container approach automatically. I proved this by creating a new version of the WF definition and kicked an instance off and watched as the system automatically classed it as '700' (or whatever version your dev system has) and started to treat it as an XML-based Workflow so updates were going to SWWCNTP0 not SWW_CONTOB.
 
We also had to implement an OSS Note to ensure that any active Workflow instances switched back to the old binding FMs when we upgraded, but I doubt that applies to you if you upgraded so long ago.
 
Like you, we have no intention of switching to the XML container for now because of reports and also error handling mechanisms that depend on SWW_CONTOB being properly updated. Trying to parse XML strings and dig through millions of tables entries just doesn't appeal to us!
 
We've had no problems at all with sending through binding changes from our ECC 6 development system so far though.
Regards,
 
Mike GT



From: fuller at MIT.EDUTo: sap-wug at MIT.EDUSubject: Re: Binding issues after transport to productionDate: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:39:49 -0500Jocelyn,

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 But this seems to be used to maintain the outdated "Structure" mode configuration.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 thatboth systems are set up with the same container handling (XML) andpersistency rules.   Also if you aren't already doing this... make sureyour test scripts for QA always include a test on workflow instancesthat was created and running before your changes were applied.  It canbe worthwhile deliberately creating workflow instances for this purposebefore importing your changes into QA. Regards,Jocelyn  -----Original Message-----From: sap-wug-bounces at MIT.EDU [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at MIT.EDU] On BehalfOf Carolyn FullerSent: Thursday, 12 February 2009 11:05 AMTo: SAP Workflow Users' GroupSubject: Re: Binding issues after transport to productionAlon,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.CarolynOn 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 listSAP-WUG at mit.eduhttp://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug_______________________________________________SAP-WUG mailing listSAP-WUG at mit.eduhttp://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
_________________________________________________________________

Hotmail, Messenger, Photos  and more - all with the new Windows Live. Get started! 
http://www.download.live.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20090212/f9602502/attachment.htm