Form steps and dynamic tasks - has anyone tried it?

[Mike Pokraka]

Hi Kjetil,

Just my opinion, but forms are great to get something really simple out
the door quickly, but the moment you need modifications you end up with
copies of form steps in forks and all sorts of ugly stuff. For anything
beyond the simplest setups I find it easier to whip up a quick function
module with dialog from scratch and plug that into a method than use those
dastardly things.

Even easier if you can squeeze what's needed into a call to
POPUP_GET_VALUES, then you can also make the task descriptions dynamic and
have the whole thing in one task.

Regards,
Mike


On Tue, March 13, 2012 10:54 am, Kjetil Kilhavn wrote:
> I have not really used form steps before. There is one workflow here that
> uses
> it, and now they want some changes. I was thinking of using dynamic task
> selection in the workflow, but it seems that is not possible.
>
> Here's the scenario: The current solution displays some information about
> a
> budget to be approved. There are two amounts and some other information.
>
> Now they want to change this solution so there are three possibilities.
> Sometimes one amount should be displayed, other times three amounts. This
> depends on the other data in the system, and it is not a problem to
> determine
> the proper case.
> However, since the structure seems to be hard-linked to the form my
> problem is
> that I can not pass different structures for the different cases. Thus I
> would
> have to have all fields necessary for at least one of the cases available.
> I
> can dynamically hide the fields I don't need, but it then seems the only
> point
> left in using dynamic task allocation is to have different task
> descriptions
> and work item texts. The user will also have different tasks in the
> workflow
> inbox which can be seen by an advantage or disadvantage depending on one's
> view.
>
> With such little advantage in using dynamic task allocation it seems I may
> as
> well split the whole thing completely and have different workflows which
> makes
> the maintenance and re-testing easier if they suddenly decide they want a
> change in one of the processes. The workflow is very small, so this is not
> really much duplication of effort/code.
>
> Please enlighten me as to whether I am making any sense, or do you have a
> better suggestion.
> --
> Kjetil Kilhavn (+47 40220607) - Blue Consulting AS (http://www.bluec.no)
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>