SAP-WUG Digest, Vol 72, Issue 32

Barin Desai barindesai at gmail.com
Mon Nov 15 14:36:48 EST 2010 

Hi all

Can you please advise what should be the xml configuration of uwl for a
workflow that is based on abap object based dialog step.

I have done an upgarde my abap webdynpro bsp and java based tasks are
working fine.

regards
barin

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:51 PM, <sap-wug-request at mit.edu> wrote:

> 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: Background Workflow steps taking many hours to execute
>      (Mike Pokraka)
>   2. Re: Background Workflow steps taking many hours to execute
>      (Carolyn A Fuller)
>   3. RE: Background Workflow steps taking many hours to execute
>      (Sample, Rick)
>   4. Process-Controlled Workflow (Andy Curtis)
>   5. RE: Background Workflow steps taking many hours to execute
>      (Sample, Rick)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:33:07 -0000 (GMT)
> From: "Mike Pokraka" <wug at workflowconnections.com>
> Subject: Re: Background Workflow steps taking many hours to execute
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> Message-ID:
>        <01dc4ed648dc10ddb3578aab4d539af9.squirrel at g.mail.aaisp.net.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Those are just regular workflow activity. RFCs happen all the time, and
> "Transaction recorded" is roughly equivalent to "on my todo list, waiting
> for other bits to finish first". SM58/SWU2 gives you a real-time snapshot
> of what the system is doing.
>
> What you're after is the RFC entry that ties in with your rogue step,
> which will hang around there until the RSWERRE job runs. So keep
> checking/refreshing throughout the day until you spot it - look at the
> transaction/program columns to give you a clue what triggered the entry.
> Once you spot one, clicking on the text should hopefully give you more
> info.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike
>
>
> On Mon, November 15, 2010 3:48 pm, Carolyn A Fuller wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > There is no message for me to click on (see attached PDF snap shot).
> Also,
> > they seem to be going away without the help of RSWERRE. According to
> > SWWLOGHIST entries, RSWERRE has not been launched since Friday.
> >
> > Carolyn
> > _______________________________________________
> > SAP-WUG mailing list
> > SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:48:49 -0500
> From: Carolyn A Fuller <fuller at MIT.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Background Workflow steps taking many hours to execute
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at MIT.EDU>
> Message-ID: <4BE0C57C-937D-42B5-B13D-21C5F47400CC at mit.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Mike,
>
> Thank you so much.
>
> So far no rogue steps this morning but I will continue to monitor
> throughout the day.
>
> Carolyn
>
> On Nov 15, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Mike Pokraka wrote:
>
> > Those are just regular workflow activity. RFCs happen all the time, and
> > "Transaction recorded" is roughly equivalent to "on my todo list, waiting
> > for other bits to finish first". SM58/SWU2 gives you a real-time snapshot
> > of what the system is doing.
> >
> > What you're after is the RFC entry that ties in with your rogue step,
> > which will hang around there until the RSWERRE job runs. So keep
> > checking/refreshing throughout the day until you spot it - look at the
> > transaction/program columns to give you a clue what triggered the entry.
> > Once you spot one, clicking on the text should hopefully give you more
> > info.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > On Mon, November 15, 2010 3:48 pm, Carolyn A Fuller wrote:
> >> Mike,
> >>
> >> There is no message for me to click on (see attached PDF snap shot).
> Also,
> >> they seem to be going away without the help of RSWERRE. According to
> >> SWWLOGHIST entries, RSWERRE has not been launched since Friday.
> >>
> >> Carolyn
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:08:14 -0600
> From: "Sample, Rick" <Rick.Sample at graybar.com>
> Subject: RE: Background Workflow steps taking many hours to execute
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> Message-ID:
>        <804C1CFBDB06C9428368F4B9023839747D32D389F0 at SEMBV1PW.graybar.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Carolyn,
>
> I have to step away for a bit, but just a quick follow-up on why not
> running after weekend comment.
>
> The defaults are 20 mins cycle. 'Were' for 4.6c err monitor anyway. I
> believe on task for Temp errors will try
> x times and then just error after that number is reached. 3 times is what
> we have ours set to and 20mins apart.
> You would want Temp errors to trip for stuff like record locked, record not
> updated before <whatever occurred to trip error>, etc. Things that should
> shake loose if you just wait a few minutes.
>
> On ECC6 I have read in the help files these numbers changed. 'If' using
> BPM, these numbers are lower.
> As I have read. Don't know for sure.
>
> I think you and Mike are on right track. "Something" changed to cause these
> issues and you need to start back tracking transports while it is still
> fresh in everyone's minds. BASIS changes, I would get history on what and
> when.
>
> Don't recall, can you reproduce this in dev or QA?
>
> Rick
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sap-wug-bounces at MIT.EDU
> > [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at MIT.EDU] On
> > Behalf Of Carolyn A Fuller
> > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 9:17
> > AM
> > To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
> > Subject: Re: Background Workflow steps
> > taking many hours to execute
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > I just ran SWU2 and I see one entry but it
> > doesn't tell me much. I am pretty sure the
> > SDN discussion about changing the
> > context to a background user is the issue
> > but I don't know why it all of a sudden
> > became an issue.
> >
> > Over the weekend the basis team did
> > change the scheduling of RSWERRE to
> > every 20 minutes. But I'm thinking
> > something else changed over the weekend
> > also. Because by this time Friday,
> > SWWLOGIHIST entries indicate
> > RSWERRE had executed 9 times. So far
> > this morning, it has not executed at all.
> >
> > Also, we discovered that this started
> > becoming an issue on Oct 29 so I'm trying
> > to find out what went into production the
> > night before. I know the transport that
> > increased the number of loops that one of
> > the templates executes went into
> > production that night. But I don't
> > understand how that could have led to this
> > particular problem.
> >
> > Carolyn
> >
> >
> > On Nov 14, 2010, at 5:03 AM, Mike
> > Pokraka wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Carolyn,
> > >
> > > Looks like it's not a WF problem but
> > something on the basis end. The log
> > shows it starts a tRFC transaction and
> > then nothing until the error job picks it up.
> > Part of the error job's function is to do
> > exactly that. You would normally see these
> > sitting in SM58 or if you don't have access
> > then one of the WF transaction does the
> > same (Could be SWU2? Just look in the
> > menu under administration -> RFC-
> > something). As Rick also mentioned, the
> > RFC is to switch the context to a
> > background user.
> > >
> > > You will only see this in SM58 between
> > the step start and when the error job picks
> > it up, so a long schedule will be better for
> > troubleshooting. Maybe search for the
> > task with today's date and status not
> > COMPLETED in SWI1 and keep
> > refreshing throughout the day until you
> > spot one. Then go look in SM58 / SWU2
> > which should give you further info. The
> > system log may tell you more, or also
> > worth checking dumps.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu
> > [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On
> > > Behalf Of Carolyn A Fuller
> > > Sent: 13 November 2010 21:44
> > > To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
> > > Subject: Re: Background Workflow
> > steps taking many hours to execute
> > >
> > > Rick,
> > >
> > > I have my personal workflow settings set
> > to Technical View. And the logs are all
> > indicating green lights and no errors.
> > >
> > > I am not sure what you mean by "Admin
> > would have logged a re-executed every 20
> > mins." RSWERRE is scheduled for every
> > 90 minutes. (Hopefully this will change by
> > Monday morning.) But even with it
> > scheduled for every 90 minutes I don't see
> > a log indicating that anything re-executed.
> > >
> > > The workflow administrators do receive
> > messages when any workflow errors occur
> > but we have not received any messages
> > from these delayed workflows.
> > >
> > > Carolyn
> > >
> > > On Nov 13, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Sample,
> > Rick wrote:
> > >
> > >> one more thing, you should be able to
> > see that in the log.
> > >> Go to the task in question, tech view,
> > and see what the logs tell you.
> > >> Admin would have logged a re-
> > executed every 20mins. Errors should be
> > >> sent to the admin as msg.
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu
> > >>> [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu]
> > On
> > >>> Behalf Of Sample, Rick
> > >>> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010
> > 10:56 AM
> > >>> To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
> > >>> Subject: RE: Background Workflow
> > steps taking many hours to execute
> > >>>
> > >>> I agree, need more info. Like, any
> > recent changes to code like a
> > >>> loop?
> > >>>
> > >>> But, temp errors are default to
> > 20mins. 20 20 and 20 is around 60,
> > >>> depending on start / finish of
> > SWWERR job.
> > >>> Note: in 4.6c, the default was 20mins
> > for the Temp Err, I believe
> > >>> that has changed for ECC6 due to
> > BPM. But we stuck to 20mins.
> > >>>
> > >>> So, if temp error, sounds like it was
> > re- attempting something until
> > >>> it finished.
> > >>> *sounds* like it.
> > >>> Check the Task BOR method for
> > temp
> > >>> exceptions.
> > >>>
> > >>> Rick Sample
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu
> > >>>> [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu]
> > On Behalf Of Jimmy Sun
> > >>>> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010
> > >>> 9:58 AM
> > >>>> To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
> > >>>> Subject: Re: Background Workflow
> > >>> steps taking many hours to execute
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Carolyn,
> > >>>> If you can explain more detail of
> > what is
> > >>> the step doing, it will help
> > >>>> to determine ther problem.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Jimmy Sun
> > >>>> Senior Consultant
> > >>>> On 11/12/10, Carolyn A Fuller
> > >>>> <fuller at mit.edu> wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi all,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Recently, my end users have
> > started
> > >>>> complaining about the performance
> > >>>>> of some of their workflow
> > background
> > >>>> steps. They said that this has
> > >>>>> just recently become a problem.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Today, I looked at the logs for one
> > of
> > >>> the
> > >>>> excessively slow workflow
> > >>>>> background steps and it indicated
> > that
> > >>>> the background step was created
> > >>>>> at 14:37:49, then started and
> > ended
> > >>>> over an hour later at 15:40:06.
> > >>>>> This step normally takes less than
> > a
> > >>>> second to execute.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> What could cause the hour delay
> > >>>> between when the step was created
> > and
> > >>>>> when the step actually started and
> > >>>> ended?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The workflow in question is using
> > XML
> > >>>> persistence. I converted this
> > >>>>> workflow to using XML persistence
> > >>>> about a year and a half ago.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> ---
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Carolyn Fuller
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Senior Analyst/ Programmer
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Information Services and
> > Technology
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Massachusetts Institute of
> > Technology
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Room W92-210
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Cambridge, MA 02139
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> (617) 253-6213
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> http://fuller.mit.edu/
> > >>>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:10:43 +0000
> From: Andy Curtis <abcurtis at gmail.com>
> Subject: Process-Controlled Workflow
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> Message-ID:
>        <AANLkTi=NzLWm-4rwAECiA1j16Tnm5ZkAPt8ek4bdtXFR at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> WUGers
>
> Just reading the SRM 7.0 Process Controlled Workflow documentation prior to
> getting a Sandbox system.  It says the UWL is now used for delivery of
> workitems.  The UWL does not display SAPMails (notifications).  In SRM 5
> the
> User would goto the SRM Approvals page and the Messages tab to see these
> SAPMails.  But SRM7.0 does not appear to have a way of presenting these to
> the User now.  Is there another SRM screen to display these to the User?
>
> I know that SONiC could be used to make the UWL display SAPMails, but SONiC
> is a SAP Consulting thing, not a SAP Product and last I knew SAP does not
> support it or offer help when it doesn't work.
>
> Anyone with PCW experience know what happens?
>
> Thanks .... Andy
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20101115/0b6193f7/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:17:08 -0600
> From: "Sample, Rick" <Rick.Sample at graybar.com>
> Subject: RE: Background Workflow steps taking many hours to execute
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> Message-ID:
>        <804C1CFBDB06C9428368F4B9023839747D32D389F9 at SEMBV1PW.graybar.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Sent last e-mail and then this one pop in.
>
> so, what was the issue? BASIS change? Other non WF change? Sun spots? (I
> hate sun spots!)
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sap-wug-bounces at MIT.EDU
> > [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at MIT.EDU] On
> > Behalf Of Carolyn A Fuller
> > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 10:49
> > AM
> > To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
> > Subject: Re: Background Workflow steps
> > taking many hours to execute
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > Thank you so much.
> >
> > So far no rogue steps this morning but I
> > will continue to monitor throughout the
> > day.
> >
> > Carolyn
> >
> > On Nov 15, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Mike
> > Pokraka wrote:
> >
> > > Those are just regular workflow activity.
> > RFCs happen all the time,
> > > and "Transaction recorded" is roughly
> > equivalent to "on my todo list,
> > > waiting for other bits to finish first".
> > SM58/SWU2 gives you a
> > > real-time snapshot of what the system is
> > doing.
> > >
> > > What you're after is the RFC entry that
> > ties in with your rogue step,
> > > which will hang around there until the
> > RSWERRE job runs. So keep
> > > checking/refreshing throughout the day
> > until you spot it - look at the
> > > transaction/program columns to give you
> > a clue what triggered the entry.
> > > Once you spot one, clicking on the text
> > should hopefully give you more
> > > info.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, November 15, 2010 3:48 pm,
> > Carolyn A Fuller wrote:
> > >> Mike,
> > >>
> > >> There is no message for me to click on
> > (see attached PDF snap shot).
> > >> Also, they seem to be going away
> > without the help of RSWERRE.
> > >> According to SWWLOGHIST entries,
> > RSWERRE has not been launched since
> > Friday.
> > >>
> > >> Carolyn
> > >>
> > __________________________________
> > _____________
> > >> 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
>
>
> End of SAP-WUG Digest, Vol 72, Issue 32
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20101116/b0389888/attachment.htm

More information about the SAP-WUG mailing list