PR Release WF - GRC ME54N

Fri Aug 26 10:53:24 EDT 2016

I have PReq Item level release here, using a decision task and a Background
Task calling BAPI_REQUISITION_RELEASE to do the releases(s).  You need to
run for each item that needs releasing.

I did try to use  BAPI_REQUISITION_RELEASE_GEN but reversed that out for
not working.

If it being updated by WF-BATCH is an issue, we update the Tracking Nbr
field BEDNR with the Userid of the person that performed the Decision Task.

All works well.

Andy Curtis

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:41 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: TechED? (Dart, Jocelyn)
>    2. RE: PR Release WF - GRC ME54N (Griffiths, Mark)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Dart, Jocelyn" <jocelyn.dart at sap.com>
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:33:18 +0000
> Subject: RE: TechED?
>
> Hi Cheri
>
> Sue Keohan’s sessions are always excellent.
>
> And there is a workshop on Fiori My Inbox that I would recommend for
>  workflow bods.
>
> I’ll also be around also although my focus is more UX these days.
>
> Rgds,
>
> Jocelyn
>
>
>
> *From:* sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Cheri Myers
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 24 August 2016 11:56 PM
> *To:* sap-wug at mit.edu
> *Subject:* TechED?
>
>
>
> Just found out I am coming to TechEd for the first time and want to
> connect with fellow Workflow experts. I have been following this group and
> developing workflow and ABAP for almost 11 years. Hoping to get inspired
> with some newer SAP skills and discuss solutions that have worked in your
> business and share what we do here at NKU.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Cheri L. Myers
>
> ESG ABAP-Workflow Team
>
> Office of Information Technology
>
> Northern Kentucky University
>
> Myersc1 at nku.edu
>
> 859-572-7673
>
> [image: cid:image002.png at 01CE4737.54250A10]
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Griffiths, Mark" <mark.griffiths at sap.com>
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 14:41:40 +0000
> Subject: RE: PR Release WF - GRC ME54N
>
> Hi Mark,
>
>
>
> Hope you are well!
>
>
>
> Through the 90’s and 00’s I set up numerous PR and PO workflows where the
> release was carried out after approval by a User Decision … I don’t recall
> any issues I couldn’t get around (though I was pretty good in those
> days;-).  I just looked at some documentation from an old project where I
> made the following note about a new method I created on ZBUS2009:
>
>
>
> *ZRelease*– Background synchronous method to release the requisition line
> using BAPI_REQUISITION_RELEASE.  In case of locking the method raises a
> temporary error, for other errors an application error is raised to error
> the workflow.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> *From:* sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Mark Pyc
> *Sent:* 24 August 2016 06:00
> *To:* SAP Workflow Users' Group <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: PR Release WF - GRC ME54N
>
>
>
> G'day Kjetil,
>
>
>
> Some clients, such as this Govt example, have such complicated rules
> regarding who should approve what based on who ordered, what was ordered
> and where it was costed to that Release Codes are simply impractical both
> from a definition, config and security allocation perspective.
>
>
>
> Beyond this my statement around SoD is that security alone (Release Code
> based or otherwise) can not prevent self approval. There are many instances
> where someone needs to have the ability to key documents and approve
> identical documents, just not approve the documents they keyed. I've heard
> this quaintly referred to as "the four eyes principle".
>
>
>
> WFs based on User Decision steps (where there is no authority check) with
> WF-BATCH performing the Release is my preferred method where either such
> requirement exists. Users have no access to the direct Release transactions
> at all, and the WF agent determination logic, however it's implemented (be
> it Resp Rules, BRF+, custom code) is the source of control, not allocation
> of security Roles. The power of "excluded" agents provides more control
> than Security ever can.
>
>
>
> Regarding updating change logs to say something other than WF-BATCH, I
> push back on this. WF-BATCH did perform the Release. If you want to know
> who was involved in the approval review the WF log. This means when someone
> is given "fire fighter" exceptional access to perform a manual release it's
> obvious from the Change Logs.
>
>
>
> Still keen to know if anyone does know of any issues of WF-BATCH PReq
> Release....
>
>
>
> Have fun,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On 24 August 2016 at 08:44, Kjetil Kilhavn <list.sap-wug at vettug.no> wrote:
>
> onsdag 17. august 2016 07.37.43 CEST skrev Mark Pyc:
> > I'm all for user decision, system update. It's the only practical way to
> > ensure true instance level SoD
>
> Could you be bothered to elaborate on that?
> I fail to see any advantages in terms of Segregation of Duties (assuming
> that
> is what you refer to) achieved by letting the user execute a user decision
> task as opposed to, in this case, a task that starts transaction ME54N?
> My point being that I don't see what you can do in your decision task that
> you
> couldn't just as well do with the task delivered by SAP. So, perhaps its
> just
> because I am not looking at it from the right perspective.
>
>
> > If anyone does know of issues of background release I'd love details.
> > I don't intend to hack around them, I'll be bitching to SAP to get them
> > resolved.
> It's not really an issue of background release, but when a user approves
> the
> release code in ME54N or ME28 an event terminates the work item. This means
> you can also hook up other workflows.
>
> Plus, if you are preventing business users from using ME28/ME54N:
> >From a user perspective: choice between ME28/ME54N  and workflow inbox.
> >From a solution design perspective: you can choose to not use workflow
> for some
> release codes.
> --
> Kjetil Kilhavn / Vettug AS (http://www.vettug.no)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20160826/3b0d089c/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4065 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20160826/3b0d089c/attachment-0001.jpg