SWU_OBUF in EHP7

[Rick Bakker]

Hi Carolyn,

Good to hear. Could you tell me though, how are the agents determined in
these steps?

Regards
Rick

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013, Carolyn A Fuller <fuller at mit.edu> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I have discovered it is only a problem in our development environment.
>
> I tried to replicate the issue in the EHP7 staging environment that we
would open to SAP and I couldn't reproduce it. The workflow successfully
showed up in the new approver's inbox after I ran SWU_OBUF.
>
> So I need to explore with our Basis team what the differences are between
our staging and development environments.
>
> Thank you everyone for your help. I have learned a lot.
>
> Carolyn
>
> On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Mike Pokraka <wug at workflowconnections.com>
>  wrote:
>
>> Hi Carolyn,
>>
>> If you can reliably reproduce it then I would suggest it needs to be
>> logged with SAP. I'd be interested in the outcome.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> On Tue, October 29, 2013 3:27 pm, Carolyn A Fuller wrote:
>>> Rick,
>>>
>>> In the email below I meant to say I ran SWI5 not SWIA after SWU_OBUF. So
>>> the answer to your question is no, the work items were not appearing in
>>> the new approvers inbox until after I ran SWI1_RULE for each work item.
>>>
>>> We just upgraded this environment to EHP7 from EHP6.
>>>
>>> In EHP6, I can do the following successfully:
>>>
>>> 1- Add new approver to an inbox
>>> 2- Run SWU_OBUF
>>> 3- Immediately create a transaction that triggers workflow that goes
into
>>> the inbox in question
>>> 4- It is in the new approver's inbox
>>>
>>> In EHP6, I follow the first 3 steps above but  the workflow item it is
not
>>> in the new approver's inbox until I run SWI1_RULE on the workflow item.
>>>
>>> Carolyn
>>>
>>> On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:09 AM, Rick Bakker
>>> <rbakker at gmail.com<mailto:rbakker at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Carolyn,
>>>
>>> Your situation sounds very wrong. What sort of inbox are the users
using?
>>> Is it a case of the UWL not being refreshed?
>>>
>>> If you look in SWI5, is the work item being assigned to the user
>>> immediately?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Rick Bakker
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2013, Carolyn A Fuller
>>> <fuller at mit.edu<mailto:fuller at mit.edu>> wrote:
>>>> Mile,
>>>>
>>>> When we first noticed this behavior, one of the other workflow
>>>> administrators set up 2 test IDs as approvers and ran SWU_OBUF. The
>>>> tester who owned those 2 test IDs went back to her desk and 45 minutes
>>>> later she created a transaction under one ID that triggered the
workflow
>>>> that should have appeared in the inbox of the other ID. It did not.
>>>> Several hours later she created an identical transaction which
triggered
>>>> the same workflow and it did appear in the inbox of her second ID.
>>>>
>>>> Last night after I set up another approver in that inbox, ran SWU_OBUF
>>>> and SWIA, the new approver had all the workflows from April in his
inbox
>>>> but none of the workflows that were created yesterday. It was not until
>>>> I had run SWI1_RULE on each of the workflows created yesterday that
they
>>>> appeared in his inbox.
>>>>
>>>> This upgrade is the first time we are noticing this behavior. Before
the
>>>> 2012 upgrade I never got any complaints. This past year, after the 2012
>>>> upgrade, I got possibly 3 complaints that workflows were not appearing
>>>> in a new approver's inbox but these workflows were from transactions
>>>> created prior to the person being set up as an approver. Since we have
>>>> more than 1 approver per position, it was easy to dismiss these 3
>>>> complaints.
>>>>
>>>> This behavior from the 2013 upgrade, will not so easily be dismissed. I
>>>> don't know whether our MIT community will tolerate being asked to send
a
>>>> list of each missing transaction so that we can run SWI1_RULE against
>>>> them. By the way, we have to have a list of transactions because of the
>>>> multiple people per position. We have no positions with no active
>>>> agents.
>>>>
>>>> Carolyn
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 29, 2013, at 6:05 AM, "Mike Pokraka"
>>>> <wug at workflowconnections.com<mailto:wug at workflowconnections.com>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Carolyn,
>>>>>
>>>>> It could also be the testing method. One gotcha is if you use multiple
>>>>> sessions and stay in the same transaction.
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20131030/e319d535/attachment-0001.htm