Container element 'EXTENDED' does not exist message SWF_EXP_001035

[r_vanrijn]

Hello,

We have inherited a Workflow for monitoring the flow of Sales return orders. The creators have left the company long ago.

Since it is our only SAP workflow we have currently very little workflow-knowledge and maintenance has been limited to changing responsilbilities in tasks

(via OOCU_RESP).

The workflow is created in 46C, works now on ECC6.0 EHP0 and shortly should be used on ECC6.0 EHP7.

Until now we could (as said) keep maintenance limited to OOCU_RESP but now we have a request to change an Agent type US User which is in the main workflow builder. This is no problem but afterward with activating it gives a Syntax check on a binding: Container element 'EXTENDED' does not exist.

So the workflow cannot be activated. However, before the change on our DEV (and Production system) it was/is active with the same container element missing. So it looks that the syntax check in the past (46C) was less rigid than it is on ECC60 EHP0.

But what is more curious: I also made the same change on our ECC60 EHP7 trial system and am able to activate it without errors, allthough the

binding element is still missing and when checking on the binding itself it still gives the error.

Since the workflow functions now as desired and it looks like no activating error occurs on ECC60 EHP7 we have postponed the change until

DEV and production are on EHP7 as well.

Mty question however is: Is it correct that syntax check on EHP7 is less rigid than on EHP0? And if not, what other difference could there be

that current system gives an error and future system doesn't?

Thank for your help,

Ruud van Rijn

[michael_kozlowski · Accepted solution]

Check sap note 1058159 container element does not exist  1058159 - Elements are missing in the workflow container

[r_vanrijn]

Hello,

Thanks for the tips. I have added the container element again and then the Workflow could be activated. Afterward ran a complete test and everything seems fine.

Regards,

Ruud

[former_member185167]

Hello,

My guess would be that in the newest version it was decided to not stop activation if certain errors are present, after complaints about that problem in the newer version. Setting a value for a non-existent container element is a problem, but it should not be a show stopper.

Was this a mail step?

regards

Rick