Skip to Content
author's profile photo
Former Member

WS14000084 in SRM 4.0 - not starting

This question is being posed from an old R/3 Workflow-er, so please excuse my lack of knowledge about SRM.

We have upgraded from EBP 3.5 to SRM 4.0 in our sandbox environment. This our landscape:

SAP_BASIS 640 SAPKB64011

SAP_ABA 640 SAPKA64011

SRM_SERVER 500 SAPKIBKS06

Our SRM consultant has enabled (via SPRO and SWB_COND) the standard SAP workflow WS14000084 and WS14000086 for BUS2000113, events CHANGEVERSIONSAVED and SAVED.

All the 'normal' workflow customizing has been carried out via SWU3. Event log is turned on. Event linkage is activated, and the check functions are

SWB_2_CHECK_FB_START_COND_EVAL (WS14000084) and SWB_CHECK_FB_START_COND_EVAL (WS14000086).

The contract is created, but of course, no workflow starts. Why else would I be annoying you with this on a Friday.

SWUD for WS14000084 gives yellow lights on the binding between task and event. Simulate Event gives red light for WS14000084, green light for WS14000086. The information on WS14000084 is that there is an error in the binding definition.

OSS Note 879528 refers to this workflow (WS14000084) in a different context, but suggests changing the binding. Okay, I know how to do that, but step 7 of this note says to change the binding to....

then there is nothing. No information on what the binding should be changed to.

Can anyone shed some light on:

What the correct binding for this task should be ?

How to tell if the event is raised. I know in SRM that the standard event log will not help.

What is the difference (in a nutshell) between the two check functions ? Why use one over the other ?

Any other tips and tricks to teach this old dog would be helpful.

Add comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Follow
  • Get RSS Feed

5 Answers

  • Sep 26, 2005 at 07:50 AM

    Hi Sue,

    Nice to see you posting here. Here's the answer which somehow got lost in translation.

    &INITIATOR& -> &_WF_INITIATOR& should be changed to:

    <b>&_WF_INITIATOR& -> &_WF_INITIATOR& </b>

    Did we beat the SAP-WUG gurus this time round?

    All the best,

    Alan

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Sep 26, 2005 at 12:55 PM

    Hi Alan,

    Thanks for the clarification on the OSS Note. The binding from WS14000148 to WS14000084 is correct, no need to apply that change.

    I also found OSS note 879873, which wants a change to the Business Object BUS2000113, and that's been applied. Am waiting for the SRM folks to create some contracts.

    Yes, you beat out the WUG gurus (shame on them!) but I am still at a loss, so the clock is still ticking.

    I can manually trigger the super-workflow, WS14000086, which calls WS14000084 with no problem, so the binding between the events and the WS does not seem to be an issue, since 14000084 is a subworkflow, should not be triggered immediately from the event CHANGEVERSIONSAVED or SAVED anyhow.

    Perhaps the problem is that the SRM person put in start conditions referring to both WS14000084 and WS14000086 ?

    Need to rein them in 😊

    Any more help would be appreciated!

    Sue

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Sep 26, 2005 at 03:29 PM

    Thanks to the excellent help from Jocelyn Dart, I now know that one of our consultants had incorrectly configured start conditions to

    a) Start the sub-workflow WS14000084 (wrong, subworkflows should not be in start conditions), and

    b) coded multiple start conditions which were not mutually exclusive.

    I now have WS14000086 starting correctly, and don't need to hang my head in shame (for a short while).

    Thanks Jocelyn, and also Dave Weston for the key about the function BBP_PDH_WFL_CHECK_BEFORE_START, which will tell you what workflow will be started.

    Sorry Alan, SAP-WUG trumped SDN.

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Sep 29, 2005 at 08:07 PM

    Hi Sue,

    No hard feelings. I was beaten fair and square 😊 by the creme de la creme.

    I don't understand why I can't award points for answering your own question but that was very gracious of you to post the answer back in the forum for others to share.

    Alan

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Sep 29, 2005 at 08:28 PM

    Hi Alan,

    I am at TechEd, and it is fantastic. The sessions Ginger Gatling is presenting (Advanced Workflow Techniques, Guided Procedures) are awesome! I had to go to one of the sessions two times it was that good. Kudos for SAP for adding all this functionality, and for Ginger for bringing it to us.

    I tried to show your blog, and it's link to search the archives, in a couple of sessions. But it looks like there is some HTML form missing ?

    I don't know how to award points, but I intend to post all my new WF questions (and I am trying to upgrade to SRM 5.0, so there will be a lot of them) both in the WUG and here. I know there is lots of good content out here on SDN, and I am eager to get at it.

    All the best,

    Sue

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • Hi Sue,

      Glad you liked, Sue. We held these sessions in Vienna last week and they were overfilled. Next week we're repeating the hands-on session in Bangalore. Shame you're not there for a third stint 😊

      Alan