| Author |
Message
|
| sam999 |
 Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:55 am Post subject: Activity prior to upes hanging |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 34
|
Hi,
I have an activity that is hanging when I try to check it in(I get a timeout). The following activity in the process is using a upes. This seems to be causing the problem because when I remove the reference to the upes the previous activity checks in no problem. Workflow seems to be trying to resolve something with the next activity and cant before it checks in the previous activity. Any ideas anyone!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jmac |
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Is the following activity an Asynchronous UPES activity?
I assume the issue is with locating the proper queue, but again, you have not given enough information.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sam999 |
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 34
|
| HI John, thanks for reply. I'm not sure what information you need to diagnose but I've tried making this activity both async and sync to see if it will work. Why is workflow having a problem trying to check back in the previous activity? Is it trying to resolve something to do with the upes activity before the prior activity can be checked in? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
look in fmcsys.log and fmcerr.log for starting point.
I assume that this is happening because the following activity is in the same MQ transaction, but I have no way of knowing this with the information I have. Please look for errors regarding the UPES queue
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sam999 |
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 34
|
| Thanks John, should have thought of that first. Problem solved. Was problem with the queue. We were using a local queue which was incorrect |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
