BADI Workflow for SRM
Stephane Bailleul
s.bailleul at free.fr
Wed Mar 11 04:17:17 EDT 2009
Hi All,
I am using workflow WS14000133
I have created my class ZCL_IM_BBP_WFL_APPROV_BADI
While testing the GET_remaining_approvers method I get the correct result
APPROVAL_I APPROVAL_B APPROVAL_AGENT NAME
APPROVAL_DESCRIPTION
0000000001 0000000000 USCONTROLEUR Test CONTROLEUR
CTRL Budg 4000003114
However the task TS14007989 (BUS4101 NEXTDYNAMICAPPROVERGET) is not returning
the values
I can see that nothing is returned from function BBP_WFL_DIN_APPR_CONTAINER_GET
in table approverlist
And the next function BBP_WFL_DIN_APPR_BY_RULE_GET is not importing the table
while in SE37 this function is returning the ET_APPROVAL_AGENTS with the correct
value !!!
However it is called like this
* get flag for indication if no further approval required
IF approverlist[] IS INITIAL.
CALL FUNCTION 'BBP_WFL_DIN_APPR_BY_RULE_GET'
EXPORTING
IV_TASK = task
IV_OBJECT_ID = lv_object_id
IV_GUID = lv_guid
IV_OBJECT_TYPE = lv_object_type
IV_ACTUAL_APPROVAL_INDEX = 0
IMPORTING
EV_NO_FURTHER_APPROVAL = lv_no_further_approval.
ENDIF. " approverlist[] IS INITIAL
So my approver list is empty !!!
Can someone help me?
Cheers
Stephane
Selon sap-wug-request at mit.edu:
> Send SAP-WUG mailing list submissions to
> sap-wug at mit.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> sap-wug-request at mit.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> sap-wug-owner at mit.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of SAP-WUG digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. RE: RSWUWFML2 - Multiple Variants (Paul Borriello)
> 2. Re: RSWUWFML2 - Multiple Variants (Jeffrey A. Rappaport)
> 3. Re: Migration from SAP 4.7 to ECC 6.0 (Ibrahim Khan)
> 4. Re: Migration from SAP 4.7 to ECC 6.0
> (Paul.Bakker at osr.treasury.qld.gov.au)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:09:19 -0400
> From: "Paul Borriello" <pborriello at yahoo.com>
> Subject: RE: RSWUWFML2 - Multiple Variants
> To: <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> Message-ID: <B559289180B54459870F5B61D63E04ED at PaulPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi All:
>
> Is it possible to run the WF email program, RSWUWFML2, in 4.6c, with two
> different variants?
>
> My client is having an issue because in the Purchase Requisition WF they
> would like one approval task work item mail to attach the Display Work Item
> link, and another different approval task Work item to attach the Execute
> Work Item link.
>
> It seems that when we run the RSWUWFML2 job, with multiple variants, the
> first job variant, with the Display Work Item link, creates the email
> correctly. The second job variant with the Execute Work Item link does not
> create the email. When I run the jobs in reverse order the first email
> creates correctly and the second still does not create the email. The first
> job is always correct, no matter the variant.
>
> Does the job for RSWUWFML2 run based upon an internal timestamp that might
> be causing this issue?
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul Borriello
> PAB Consulting, LLC
> 973-635-3412-office
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: winmail.dat
> Type: application/ms-tnef
> Size: 5274 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url :
>
http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20090310/79e269d3/winmail-0001.bin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:54:16 -0400
> From: "Jeffrey A. Rappaport" <Jeff at Business-Workflow.com>
> Subject: Re: RSWUWFML2 - Multiple Variants
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> Message-ID: <312FF48244AA46F3BA88197DF5945359 at Jeff>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hey Paul,
>
> How's it going? Did you use different Job Suffixes (1st entry), if not try
> that?
>
> Jeffrey A. Rappaport
> Business Workflow, LLC
> Voice: +1 (732) 355-0123
> Fax: +1 (509) 757-4144
> Email: Jeff at Business-Workflow.com
> Web: www.Business-Workflow.com
>
> The information contained in this message may be privileged, confidential
> and protected from disclosure. If the Reader of this message is not the
> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error and would like to be removed from
> any future mailings from this Sender, please hit 'Reply' to this email with
> "REMOVE" in the Subject line.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Borriello
> To: sap-wug at mit.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 9:09 PM
> Subject: RE: RSWUWFML2 - Multiple Variants
>
>
> Hi All:
>
> Is it possible to run the WF email program, RSWUWFML2, in 4.6c, with two
> different variants?
>
> My client is having an issue because in the Purchase Requisition WF they
> would like one approval task work item mail to attach the Display Work Item
> link, and another different approval task Work item to attach the Execute
> Work Item link.
>
> It seems that when we run the RSWUWFML2 job, with multiple variants, the
> first job variant, with the Display Work Item link, creates the email
> correctly. The second job variant with the Execute Work Item link does not
> create the email. When I run the jobs in reverse order the first email
> creates correctly and the second still does not create the email. The
> first
> job is always correct, no matter the variant.
>
> Does the job for RSWUWFML2 run based upon an internal timestamp that might
> be causing this issue?
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul Borriello
> PAB Consulting, LLC
> 973-635-3412-office
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090310/e949bf02/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:27:12 +0400
> From: Ibrahim Khan <ikhansap at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Migration from SAP 4.7 to ECC 6.0
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <SAP-WUG at mit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <fff808000903102127u44529458ub6e7170e019b2988 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Worfklow experts,
> Any idea???
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Ibrahim Khan <ikhansap at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Friends,
> > We are currently using 4.7 version and we are moving to ECC 6.0(it's not
> > an upgrade project, we are building a new system). We have some workflow
> > templates in 4.7 and we want to migrate it to ECC 6.0. What is the best
> > practice for this. If we save the existing workflow templates and BOR
> > objects in 4.7 in a transport request and move this transport request to
> ECC
> > 6.0 system will it work? or do we need to create the entire workflow
> > template again in 6.0? Keep in mind that we are not doing the upgrade here.
> > Please advice.
> >
> > Rgds,
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
>
http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20090311/bf083af5/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:54:44 +1000
> From: Paul.Bakker at osr.treasury.qld.gov.au
> Subject: Re: Migration from SAP 4.7 to ECC 6.0
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> Message-ID:
>
<OF1F0F5FE3.C7CA016E-ON4A257576.001A4AD0-4A257576.001AF0ED at treasury.qld.gov.au>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
> Hi,
>
> We are going through exactly the same exercise at the moment. We chose to
> simply reimplement the workflows.
>
> It was not a tough decision because:
> (1) we don't have that many workflows (about a dozen)
> (2) they are not that complex
> (3) the underlying objects / DDIC elements had to be re-implemented anyway,
> in our brand new customer namespace.
>
> I think that using transports would be a risky enterprise, as you would be
> hardpressed to
> ensure that _all_ dependent objects and config are transported at the same
> time.
> There are also ECC 6.0 compatibility issues to consider when transporting.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> cheers
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> Ibrahim Khan
> <ikhansap at gmail.c
> om> To
> Sent by: "SAP Workflow Users' Group"
> sap-wug-bounces at m <SAP-WUG at mit.edu>
> it.edu cc
>
> Subject
> 11/03/2009 02:27 Re: Migration from SAP 4.7 to ECC
> PM 6.0
>
>
> Please respond to
> "SAP Workflow
> Users' Group"
> <sap-wug at mit.edu>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Worfklow experts,
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Ibrahim Khan <ikhansap at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Friends,
> 6.0(it's not an upgrade project, we are building a new system). We have
> some workflow templates in 4.7 and we want to migrate it to ECC 6.0. What
> is the best practice for this. If we save the existing workflow templates
> and BOR objects in 4.7 in a transport request and move this transport
> request to ECC 6.0 system will it work? or do we need to create the
> entire workflow template again in 6.0? Keep in mind that we are not doing
> the upgrade here. Please advice.
>
> Rgds,
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>
>
>
>
******************************************************************************************************************************************************
>
> Only an individual or entity who is intended to be a recipient of this e-mail
> may access or use the information contained in this e-mail or any of its
> attachments. Opinions contained in this e-mail or any of its attachments do
> not necessarily reflect the opinions of Queensland Treasury.
>
> The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be
> legally privileged and the subject of copyright. If you have received this
> e-mail in error, please notify Queensland Treasury immediately and erase all
> copies of the e-mail and the attachments. Queensland Treasury uses virus
> scanning software. However, it is not liable for viruses present in this
> e-mail or in any attachment.
>
>
******************************************************************************************************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>
>
> End of SAP-WUG Digest, Vol 52, Issue 18
> ***************************************
>
--
More information about the SAP-WUG
mailing list