SOFM in user decision step - provide reason in UWL

[Former Member]

Hello Everyone,

I'm working with a customer who wants to use a user decision step and add a reason for the rejection only. This step will be executed in UWL - since UWL doesn't support syncrhonous dialog chains, it can't be implemented by adding another step with SOFM. I have seen the 'template with attachment' in the user decision step, and have tried binding SOFM to the Reference in the container, but the user doesn't have the option.

Perhaps this could be implemented with a secondard amodal method - which checks the user decision code and only implements if the decision was rejected. I'd like to be able to put a condition on the secondary methods.

If you've done something like this, please let me know!

Regards

Ginger

[MarkusKlein]

Hello Ginger,

why do you not use the standard functionality UserDecisionNote for the UserDecisionHandler? This way you can add a Text-View element to the task in the UWL

http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/a9/76bd3b57743b09e10000000a11402f/frameset.htm

[pokrakam]

Hi Ginger,

Unfortunately it is not only synchronous dialog chains, but also secondary methods that are not supported in the UWL, so you're stuck both ways.

Though, I have been told that the latest SP does support some kind of advance with dialog functionality (SP15 I think?).

At one customer we used a custom ABAP-based decision step which executed in a wingui session - thus synchronous dialog chains worked as long as every subsequent step was wingui based (which SOFM.CREATE obviously is) - worked quite well.

Let me know if you need more info.

Cheers,

Mike

[former_member3555]

Hi Mike,

Secondary methods are supported in UWL beginning with NW04 SP14.

Thanks

Ginger

[former_member3555]

Hi Mike,

I'll try the winGUI solution.

thanks!

-ginger

[pokrakam]

Just found the secondary method info, thanks. Will be added to the Workflow FAQ.

I am not too sure about advance with dialog though, I had a look around and cannot find a thing. I think I may have been misinformed (no names mentioned), so ignore any comments I may have made in that respect.

Cheers,

Mike