Kürzlich hatte ich die Situation, dass eine Führungskraft einen Abwesenheitsantrag in der Inbox hatte für eine Abwesenheitsart, die eigentlich nicht genehmigungspflichtig ist. Es hätte also gar kein Genehmigungsworkflow gestartet werden dürfen. Merkwürdigerweise war die beantragte Abwesenheit auch bereits im Infotyp verbucht. Auch konnte man den Antrag in der Inbox weder Ablehnen noch Genehmigen, beides lief auf ein Fehler.
Wie kam es also zu dieser Situation?
Der Mitarbeiter hatte einen Antrag mit einer genehmigungspflichtigen Abwesenheitsart gestellt, wie z.B. Urlaub.
Bevor der Genehmiger diesen Antrag bearbeitet hat, wurde der Antrag vom Antragsteller jedoch nochmal abgeändert. Dies ist über das Stift-Symbol möglich. Dabei wurde dann eine nicht genehmigungspflichtige Abwesenheitsart gewählt, wie z.B. Abbau Überzeit.
In diesem Fall wird der Antrag ohne Genehmigungsprozess durchlaufen und die Abwesenheit wird kurz darauf direkt in den Infotyp geschrieben durch den Verbucherreport.
Jedoch gab es ja bereits einen laufenden Workflow mit einem Workitem in der Inbox des Genehmigers und dieser wurde nicht beendet. Stattdessen wurde in dem Workitem sogar die beantragte Abwesenheitsart aktualisiert, obwohl für diese Abwesenheitsart ja gar keine Genehmigung erforderlich ist und sogar bereits in den Infotyp geschrieben war.
Auch in der Antragsdatenbank spiegelt sich das Problem wider. Der Antrag stand dort im Status ‘POSTED‘ und der Workflow-Status auf ‘STARTED‘.
Ich habe das Szenario dann mit einer Zweiten, nicht genehmigungspflichtigen Abwesenheitsart getestet, also Urlaub erfasst und vor Genehmigung die Abwesenheitsart geändert. Hier wurde jedoch der laufende Workflow korrekterweise beendet.
Als ich beide Abwesenheitsarten in der V_T554S_WEB verglichen habe, ist mir aufgefallen, dass bei der problembehafteten Abwesenheitsart ein Workflow gecustomized war, obwohl diese ja nicht genehmigungspflichtig ist. Der Workflow wurde jedoch nur verwendet, um eine Info-Mail zu versenden.
Die Workflow Checkbox ließ sich leider nicht deaktivieren (vermutlich weil es schon Anträge zu der Abwesenheitsart gibt). Aber es scheint, als führt dieses Workflowcustomizing dann zu Inkonsistenzen, wenn in einem laufenden Antrag von einer genehmigungspflichtigen Abwesenheitsart zu einer nichtgenehmigungspflichtigen gewechselt wird.
Dieser Post nur als Erinnerung, falls ich nochmal in so eine Situation laufe. Vielleicht habe ich dann die Chance, es zu verifizieren.
Beim Einrichten der 1-Stufigen Genehmigung von Urlaub mit dem Standard Workflow 21500001 bin ich in folgenden Fehler gelaufen in der Inbox nach Drücken des Genehmigungsbuttons.
Merkwürdigerweise wurde der Urlaubsantrag erfolgreich genehmigt und trotzdem gab es eine Fehlermeldung. Nach kurzem debuggen war auch klar warum. Der Antrag wurde erst erfolgreich genehmigt und dann wurde das gleiche Coding nochmal durchlaufen und führte zu einer Kollisionsmeldung.
Daraufhin habe ich mir den BAdI /IWWRK/BADI_WF_BEFORE_UPD_IB angeschaut. Dort konnte ich zwei Implementierungen zum Thema Leave Approval finden und in beiden war der Workflow 21500001 als Filterkriterium eingetragen. Das erklärte, warum die Genehmigungslogik zweimal durchlaufen wurde.
Daraufhin habe ich nach einem Hinweis gesucht und folgenden gefunden: 2658528. Der beschreibt zwar eine andere Fehlermeldung, aber die Lösung war genau die Aussage, die ich gesucht habe.
Die Implementierung HRMSS_LEAVE_APPROVAL musste also deaktiviert werden. Ich habe das über die SE19 gemacht, auch wenn das bedeutete, dass ich nun als letzter Änderer eines SAP-Objekts drin stehe. Anscheinend geht es auch über den Funktionsbaustein ENH_BADI_IMG_ACTIVITY_TOGGLE wie hier beschrieben.
You can use the SAP_WAPI_CREATE_WORKLIST function module to display all workitems that are currently in a user’s inbox. This is very useful, as you cannot use the “on behalf of” function in MyInbox.
In the SAP Fiori Apps Reference Library, you have to select the target system on which the app is to be installed. You can choose between different major releases and also between different FPS’s.
These feature packs are smaller, targeted updates delivered between major releases of S/4HANA. To check if a Feature Pack is installed on your system, go to
System → Status → Button Product version → Tab Installed Product versions → Column SP / FTP Stack
Customizing SPRO → Personnel Management → Employee Self-Service (Web Dynpro ABAP) → Service-Specific Settings → Working Time → My Overtime Requests.
Adjusting the Fiori UI
If you want to hide fields in the Fiori frontend, or you want to adjust some labels, you can simply do this via Customizing: My Overtime Requests → Layout of the Web Application → Define Field Selection
Multi-Level Approval for Time Data Requests (HRPT_B_TMD_MULTI_APPROVERS)
The BAdI is called when opening the My Overtime Request App and a second time when clicking on the New Button to create a new OVT request. It’s not triggered when sending the request, what I initially expected. To reuse the code from the sample class,
* "Determine approver level
* DATA(cust_key_request_fields) = VALUE cl_hrpt_ovt_const=>ovt_cust_key_request_fields( pernr = iv_pernr
* ktart = iv_subtype
* date = is_request_period-start_date ).
* TRY.
* DATA(approval_settings) = cl_hrpt_ovt_cust_factory=>get_customizing_reader( )->get_approval_settings( REF #( cust_key_request_fields ) ).
* CATCH cx_hrpt_tmd.
* RETURN.
* ENDTRY.
* IF approval_settings-use_multiple_approver = abap_false.
* RETURN.
* ENDIF.
....
* "If no last approvers exist, use line manager, HR BP and HR Admin by default
* CALL FUNCTION 'BAPI_GET_LINE_MANAGER'
* EXPORTING
* im_objid = iv_pernr
* IMPORTING
* es_approver = line_manager
* ev_has_manager = approver_exists.
* IF approver_exists = abap_true.
* last_seqnr = last_seqnr + 1.
* line_manager-seqnr = last_seqnr.
* APPEND line_manager TO rt_approver_tab.
* IF lines( rt_approver_tab ) >= approval_settings-approver_level.
* RETURN.
* ENDIF.
* ENDIF.
you have to set the amount of approval steps in the customizing.
Also, a Filter must be set for the BAdI:
When you run into a permission issue when opening an overtime request in MyInbox, take a look in the HCMFAB_COMMON BAdI. Perhaps the GET_CONFIGURATION method must be implemented
method if_ex_hcmfab_common~get_configuration.
ev_hide_employee_picture = abap_false.
ev_hide_employee_number = abap_false.
ev_hide_ce_button = abap_false.
ev_enable_onbehalf = abap_false.
ev_show_empl_number_wo_zeros = abap_false.
* On_behalf is switched off by default for compatibility reasons
* To activate it for all users who are mangers the following code could be used:
case iv_application_id.
when gc_application_id-myovertimequota.
ev_enable_onbehalf = boolc( go_employee_api->is_manager( iv_application_id = iv_application_id
iv_pernr = iv_employee_number ) = abap_true ).
endcase.
* In case that on behalf is active, transfer all data to the frontend. This is faster for small number of employees.
* The backend search would only transfer the visible employees to the frontend, at the cost of multiple smaller requests.
ev_use_onbehalf_backend_search = abap_false.
endmethod.
Custom Workflow
If you want to replace the default Workflow WS02400057 (PT_OVTREQ) with a custom one, you must adjust the customizing (as described here for the standard WF), and you’ll need to create a new BAdI Implementation for /IWWRK/ES_WF_WI_BEFORE_UPD_IB analog HCMFAB_MYOTQ_APPROVAL_INBOX to get the Approve and Rejects Buttons working by providing the Workflow-ID and decision Step-ID.
Extensibility
Although it should be possible to extend both Fiori Apps via Adaptation Projects, I was unable to do so. Either it’s a problem with the new adaption editor, which got new released while writing the blog, or it is a problem with the apps itself. Whatever I tried, I was always running in issues.
Therefore, I did it the “classic” way and created an Extension Project and used the provided Extension Points. For the Approval App, I was unable to preview the application directly in BAS, perhaps because it is only an Inbox integration and does not run standalone. I therefore always had to deploy, to test my changes.
Somehow I did something stupid yesterday. I created a new OData Service via SEGW and after generating it, the classes had a _01 in the name, which of course was not what I wanted. So I came up with the idea of simply deleting the 4 generated classes and regenerate the service. That worked fine, and the classes then got the right name. But when I tried to add the service via /iwfnd/maint_service, I got the following error:
Somehow, the service was still looking for a class that I had deleted because it had an incorrect name.
When I opened the service via /iwbep/reg_service, I saw that in the model information, that there was still the incorrect class name for the model provider class. So I needed to update the model provider class which was assigned to the technical model. This was possible via /iwbep/reg_model (Report /IWBEP/R_DST_MODEL_BUILDER). This report can also be accessed by clicking on “Create model” in the /iwbep/reg_service transaction, but the required “Change” button is then deactivated, so be sure to open it in a separate GUI window. After adjusting the model provider class, I was finally able to add the service successfully via /iwfnd/maint_service.
Next time, instead of deleting the classes, betting delete the full OData Service (like it is described here) and create a complete new one.
Recently I was continuing an enhancement project of a standard Fiori Application. The already existing enhancement project was created using WebIDE a few years ago. Now I needed to add some more functionality to the enhancement project using the Business Application Studio. To my surprise, the automatic migration of the WebIDE project to a BAS project was working without any issues. Nice! I could make my changes and everything was fine until I tried to deploy the application.
The abap_deploy_taskaborted with the error “Request is not a local Request” (in German “Auftrag ist kein lokaler Auftrag“).
Somehow it did not deploy in my Workbench Transport Request and was expecting a Local Transport Request.
At first, I thought, this was a problem in the ui5-deploy.yaml configuration of my App, and therefore I was looking in the wrong direction. But after checking the package of the already deployed enhancement project in the backend, I finally found the reason. The Transport Layer of the Package containing the BSP application was not correct. It turned out, that the previous developer was not able to deploy from his WebIDE directly to the system, instead he deployed to another system, exported and then imported the transport request manually. Therefore, the “Original System” of all objects was incorrect and also the Transport Layer on the Package. After updating both (like described here), I was able to deploy the enhancement project successfully in my Workbench Transport Request.
Recently found the Environment Check functionality in BAS, which really helped me to check destinations on different customer BAS instances, where I didn’t have direct access to the BTP instance. I’m just posting this here so I don’t forget.
Recently, I was confronted with the “Failed to load catalogs” error message when starting the Fiori Launchpad (/ui2/flp) and navigating to the App Finder.
The system was quite new and the Fiori Customizing was not completely done yet. When opening the Dev Tools, I saw a failed request to
Opening this failed request in a new tab results in an HTTP 404 from an Apache web service. So it looked like an Apache was set up as reverse proxy in front of the sap system. I tried to call the PageSets endpoint without providing the key %2FUI2%2FFiori2LaunchpadHome and got an HTTP 200. So in general, Apache was working, and the service endpoint page_builder_pers was responding. Next, I did the same service calls from the gateway client and both calls were working fine. So it looked like Apache was the problem when providing the PageSets key. After a quick search, I found this post on Stack Overflow:
So the issue was some (in this case) incorrect decoding of ‘%2F’. After contacting the basis team and adding the proposed Apache configs, the request finally resolved successfully, and the Launchpad was displaying some apps.
