Re: Re: SCP Workflow question
Kjetil Kilhavn
list.sap-wug at vettug.no
Wed May 9 22:53:16 EDT 2018
I'll leave the UI5 and offline/draft for the experts, but once they
press submit I don't think it's an unreasonable scenario.
With an instance-independent (or static) method you can have a work item
without a pre-existing object, and the triggering event could be
"CreateFromData" or "RequestDataSubmitted" or whatever you want to name
it, with all the submitted data as parameters (whether a structure or
individual fields). If the creation fails, there will be no temporary
data records other than in your workflow/work item container
(transferred from the event container) - so no need for cleanup outside
of regular workflow monitoring.
However, there will need to be error handling as mentioned by Jocelyn,
so you'll then need that UX solution to be able to receive the
previously submitted data back along with a message or list of messages
to correct the problem(s) before resubmitting - because surely they
don't want you to present the data from their 'beautiful' UX in a SAP
GUI screen for error correction? Thus you bring the challenge back to
them ;-)
Den 09. mai 2018 12:13, skreiv Andy Curtis:
> Maybe I am doing a poor job of explaining because we do have a team of
> experienced mobile people.
>
> We originally said, 'when user presses 'submit' there should be 2
> things happen, the 'request' should be saved and Wf should be
> triggered. They read this as 2 client side actions (1 to send screen
> data to the server, the second to trigger Wf) and were concerned what
> would happen if the first action succeeded and the second failed. The
> answer to that is to have 1 server side service to receive the screen
> data, create a database record and trigger Wf). But the pushback came
> that if there was 1 client side action to trigger Wf (server side)
> passing the screen data to the Context, then Wf could create the
> database record as the first step.
>
> Thats where my karma is suffering. I believe it is 'right/correct' to
> have a server side service receive the screen data, create a 'request'
> on a database and then trigger Wf. Replacing the server side service
> to receive the screendata and trigger Wf, I think is fundamentally
> wrong because I have never created a Wf that did not have an business
> object/Class instance when it started.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Andy
>
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:11 AM, <sap-wug-request at mit.edu
> <mailto:sap-wug-request at mit.edu>> wrote:
>
> Send SAP-WUG mailing list submissions to
> sap-wug at mit.edu <mailto:sap-wug at mit.edu>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
> <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 <mailto:sap-wug-request at mit.edu>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> sap-wug-owner at mit.edu <mailto: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: ?SCP Workflow question (Dart, Jocelyn)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Dart, Jocelyn" <jocelyn.dart at sap.com
> <mailto:jocelyn.dart at sap.com>>
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu
> <mailto:sap-wug at mit.edu>>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 09:11:13 +0000
> Subject:
>
> Re: SCP Workflow question
> Hi Andy
> Ok this sounds like the usual non workflow developer mistake of
> thinking workflow is somehow another pseudo database. With this
> approach if you lose comms you have an orphaned workflow.... which
> surely would be much harder to clean up than a single database
> entry wherever it is held.
>
> Do they have anyone who has actually done offline mobile scenarios
> before advising them?
>
> To me - and granted I am not an expert in this - it sounds more
> like what you need is a staging table in the cloud database for
> the initial request. Then if all details are received that
> becomes your draft business object trigger for the workflow which
> then completes the process including identifying if the entry is a
> duplicate or receiving out of order or whatever & if all is well
> then updating the real backend database & then ends with cleaning
> up the draft/staging entry.
>
> That way you know if there is anything outstanding or blocked by
> checking the staging table contents
>
> Just a suggestion... again really they need to involve someone
> with offline mobile experience
> Rgds
> Jocelyn
>
> Sent from my iPhone with many apologies for the spelling, grammar
> and any other deficiencies
>
> On 9 May 2018, at 6:43 pm, Andy Curtis <abcurtis at gmail.com
> <mailto:abcurtis at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Thanks WUG'ers
>>
>> I'll add some 'colour' to my scenario. We have a UI5 screen to
>> create a 'request' this screen can be delivered to a user on any
>> device, including mobile phones where comms could be patchy, so
>> loss of comms is a feature that the 'techs' are concerned about.
>> So the proposal from them is to have a single comm from the UI5
>> when the 'request' data is entered. So, data coming from a
>> screen on a mobile, arrives at the server and something needs to
>> take it and create a 'request' in a database. My opinion is
>> there should be a Service to receive the comms and create the
>> 'request' in the database, assigning a number to it and then
>> triggering Wf passing the 'request' that has been saved on a
>> database.
>>
>> Their suggestion is, when the data arrives at the server it
>> triggers Wf immediately (before the 'request' is created on the
>> database) and the first step in the Wf is to create the 'request'
>> get back the 'request' nbr and then continue through the approval
>> process. This would be the first time I have ever started a Wf
>> without an instance of the object, (I don't think I could trigger
>> a Classic Wf without an object instance) and it just does not
>> feel right to me. Hence my question to the community to find out
>> if others thought it was good practice to start a Wf without an
>> object instance and have Wf create it.
>>
>>
>> @Kjetil, in a create vendor account process, would the first
>> step be a user in XK01 creating a Vendor account? When saving
>> the transaction it creates a vendor record and triggers Wf to
>> start the process. The vendor nbr would exist before Wf was
>> triggered and an instance of the vendor object would exist. Or
>> maybe you have a Form and you want to start a Wf to create a
>> vendor master
>>
>> @Mark, I started to think SAP Cloud was the new R/3 and prepared
>> to catch a new wave,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Andy Curtis
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:55 AM, <sap-wug-request at mit.edu
>> <mailto:sap-wug-request at mit.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Send SAP-WUG mailing list submissions to
>> sap-wug at mit.edu <mailto:sap-wug at mit.edu>
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>> <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 <mailto:sap-wug-request at mit.edu>
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> sap-wug-owner at mit.edu <mailto: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. SCP Workflow question (Andy Curtis)
>> 2. Re: SCP Workflow question (Kjetil Kilhavn)
>> 3. Re: SCP Workflow question (Mark Pyc)
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Andy Curtis <abcurtis at gmail.com
>> <mailto:abcurtis at gmail.com>>
>> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu
>> <mailto:sap-wug at mit.edu>>
>> Cc:
>> Bcc:
>> Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 18:08:44 +0100
>> Subject:
>>
>> SCP Workflow question
>> WUG'ers :) (longtime no see)
>>
>> I am graduating to SCP Workflow and have a question, I wonder
>> if anyone can help me out.
>>
>> I have always built Classic Workflows triggered after an
>> object has been created in a database, or SAP always saves
>> the object and then sends the Wf triggering event. I would
>> say thats best practice and it also fits with my other
>> narrative about keeping process and application logic separate.
>>
>> In SCP it is possible to trigger a SCP Workflow without an
>> Object, but is that a good idea? The thought it to trigger
>> SCP Wf and have a step that calls a task to create the
>> object, so the Wf is basically generic to start with, then
>> becomes instantiated after the first step. Would anyone else
>> think this is a good idea? I don't, I think a Wf should have
>> an object before being started but I am having a hard time
>> arguing the case, so really looking for other informed opinion.
>>
>> Anyone got one?
>>
>>
>> Andy Curtis
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Kjetil Kilhavn <list.sap-wug at vettug.no
>> <mailto:list.sap-wug at vettug.no>>
>> To: sap-wug at mit.edu <mailto:sap-wug at mit.edu>
>> Cc:
>> Bcc:
>> Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 22:03:13 +0200
>> Subject: Re: SCP Workflow question
>>
>> What is an object? If the workflow is "Create Vendor Account"
>> and takes a bunch of input parameters for the new vendor,
>> then why not let it start before there is an LFA1 record in
>> the database? You have an object, it just isn't complete yet,
>> it is a draft for a vendor record. Sort of like FIPP objects.
>>
>> But the way you describe it it may also be a workflow that
>> doesn't have a clue what is about to happen, so any type of
>> object can be created etc. I suppose it could still be a
>> valid use case, but it's a bit harder to imagine. How would
>> one for instance identify agents for the first step if you
>> don't even know what is going to be created.
>>
>>
>> Den 08. mai 2018 19:08, skreiv Andy Curtis:
>>> WUG'ers :) (longtime no see)
>>>
>>> I am graduating to SCP Workflow and have a question, I
>>> wonder if anyone can help me out.
>>>
>>> I have always built Classic Workflows triggered after an
>>> object has been created in a database, or SAP always saves
>>> the object and then sends the Wf triggering event. I would
>>> say thats best practice and it also fits with my other
>>> narrative about keeping process and application logic separate.
>>>
>>> In SCP it is possible to trigger a SCP Workflow without an
>>> Object, but is that a good idea? The thought it to trigger
>>> SCP Wf and have a step that calls a task to create the
>>> object, so the Wf is basically generic to start with, then
>>> becomes instantiated after the first step. Would anyone
>>> else think this is a good idea? I don't, I think a Wf
>>> should have an object before being started but I am having a
>>> hard time arguing the case, so really looking for other
>>> informed opinion.
>>>
>>> Anyone got one?
>>>
>>>
>>> Andy Curtis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> SAP-WUG mailing list
>>> SAP-WUG at mit.edu <mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu>
>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>>> <http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug>
>>
>> --
>> Kjetil Kilhavn
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Mark Pyc <mark.pyc at gmail.com <mailto:mark.pyc at gmail.com>>
>> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu
>> <mailto:sap-wug at mit.edu>>
>> Cc:
>> Bcc:
>> Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 09:50:14 +1000
>> Subject: Re: SCP Workflow question
>> Agree with Kjetil and agree it's a lot like a FIPP to BKPF or
>> maybe more so like BUS2105 to BUS2012. Thing is LFA1 doesn't
>> have such an obvious 'requested' phase. I've done similar
>> things before but I end up creating a request application
>> which assigns a GUID to the request, and that's the object
>> that the WF operates on. Now you _could_ use the WF instance
>> id as the request number and capture all the data into
>> containers rather than custom tables but, in non-cloud at
>> least, that would seem to me to be a lazy hack that would
>> cost you in the long run - think about reporting and monitoring.
>>
>> The cloud... hmmm don't get me started on the cloud, or least
>> SAPs endeavours in that space... it might seem easier to use
>> the WF as the request DB but again I still think it's lazy. I
>> started typing thinking I might have a different attitude
>> given the cloud but I don't
>>
>> Create a "Vendor Request" application (if you don't want to
>> use MDM requests and WF - not sure of cloud availability) and
>> then build WF with a known instance as you always would.
>>
>> My 2p / 2c / 2 lowest units of your desired currency.
>>
>> Have fun,
>> Mark
>>
>> On 9 May 2018 at 06:03, Kjetil Kilhavn
>> <list.sap-wug at vettug.no <mailto:list.sap-wug at vettug.no>> wrote:
>>
>> What is an object? If the workflow is "Create Vendor
>> Account" and takes a bunch of input parameters for the
>> new vendor, then why not let it start before there is an
>> LFA1 record in the database? You have an object, it just
>> isn't complete yet, it is a draft for a vendor record.
>> Sort of like FIPP objects.
>>
>> But the way you describe it it may also be a workflow
>> that doesn't have a clue what is about to happen, so any
>> type of object can be created etc. I suppose it could
>> still be a valid use case, but it's a bit harder to
>> imagine. How would one for instance identify agents for
>> the first step if you don't even know what is going to be
>> created.
>>
>>
>> Den 08. mai 2018 19:08, skreiv Andy Curtis:
>>> WUG'ers :) (longtime no see)
>>>
>>> I am graduating to SCP Workflow and have a question, I
>>> wonder if anyone can help me out.
>>>
>>> I have always built Classic Workflows triggered after an
>>> object has been created in a database, or SAP always
>>> saves the object and then sends the Wf triggering
>>> event. I would say thats best practice and it also fits
>>> with my other narrative about keeping process and
>>> application logic separate.
>>>
>>> In SCP it is possible to trigger a SCP Workflow without
>>> an Object, but is that a good idea? The thought it to
>>> trigger SCP Wf and have a step that calls a task to
>>> create the object, so the Wf is basically generic to
>>> start with, then becomes instantiated after the first
>>> step. Would anyone else think this is a good idea? I
>>> don't, I think a Wf should have an object before being
>>> started but I am having a hard time arguing the case, so
>>> really looking for other informed opinion.
>>>
>>> Anyone got one?
>>>
>>>
>>> Andy Curtis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> SAP-WUG mailing list
>>> SAP-WUG at mit.edu <mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu>
>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>>> <http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug>
>>
>> --
>> Kjetil Kilhavn
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SAP-WUG mailing list
>> SAP-WUG at mit.edu <mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu>
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>> <http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SAP-WUG mailing list
>> SAP-WUG at mit.edu <mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu>
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>> <http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SAP-WUG mailing list
>> SAP-WUG at mit.edu <mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu>
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>> <http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu <mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu>
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
> <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
--
Kjetil Kilhavn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20180509/43cf40d2/attachment-0001.html
More information about the SAP-WUG
mailing list