Month: March 2017

Continuing my list of suggestions for improving Workflow, I have another one for you to vote for.

Through enabling a Dex.ini switch, an enhanced Workflow Condition Query Editor can be enabled, which allows Dexterity tables to be joined into the workflow. However, there have been a few times recently when being able to join in a SQL View would have been most beneficial. This functionality is available in SmartList Designer where Dex tables can be selected and at the bottom of the list is a node for SQL Views which displays all of the views in the database and allows them to be selected.

I’d like the same functionality made available to Workflow Maintenance to add flexibility to workflow design.

You can vote for this suggestion here.

One of our clients was creating a new company recently when GP Utilities produced an error:

The client clicked the OK button and GP Utilities ran through to completion. However, when the user logged into Microsoft Dynamics GP using the sa account, the company was not available for selection.

This is when they called us asking for help.

When we connected in we found that the company did have a record in Company Master (SY01500), but did not have an entry in User-Company Access (SY60100).

The company was listed in the Delete Company window (Administration >> Utilities >> Delete Company). However when the company was deleted, the database remained behind.

I’ve had problems deleting databases this way before, so when I was called over, I directed my colleague to delete the database directly in SQL Server Management Studio and run the Clear Companies script available in Microsoft KB 855361.

A quick search for the error message, revealed a Microsoft Knowledge Base article covering this exact issue.

At some point, the system database’s owner had been changed away from DYNSA. Running the following script set the owner back to DYNSA, allowing the company to be created:

sp_changedbowner 'DYNSA'

A client who had recently upgraded to Microsoft Dynamics GP 2016 reported an error when approving a purchase order via Workflow 2.0 Email Actions. The user would click Approve on the email, enter their comment and click Approve and then received the following message:

The purchase order was showing as approved, so Workflow itself was working correctly from this point of view and I couldn’t find any logs which might explain the issue.

However, while I was having a look at the workflow setup, I noticed that the Purchase Order Approval workflow type, did not have a manager set. There had been a workflow manager defined or the workflow process could not have been activated, but at some point it disappeared.

Adding a manager for the workflow type, saw the error message stop appearing.

The manager’s disappearance could be related to the upgrade, but I’ve upgraded some other clients who were using workflow and not had his same problem.

I have another Workflow related MS Connect Suggestion I’d like you to vote for.

I have worked on a number of projects for clients implementing Workflow 2.0 where being able to set one step with multiple parents would greatly reduce the work involved in creating the workflow.

For example I have recently worked with a client who has a Function segment in the chart of accounts, which requires approval by the Function Approver, which is a different person for each Function, and then a second level of approval by a Finance Panel, which is always the same five people.

When we create the workflow for POs we need to create forty Steps, one for each Function with it’s set of approvers, and then forty Finance Panel Approval Steps after each of the Function approval steps.

For example:

Step for Function = "IT"
	followed by a Finance Panel approval step.
Step for Function = "HR"
	followed by a Finance Panel approval step.
Step for Function = "TRAINING"
	followed by a Finance Panel approval step.
Step for Function = "SALES"
	followed by a Finance Panel approval step.
Step for Function = "ADMIN"
	followed by a Finance Panel approval step.
Step for Function = "OPERATIONS"
	followed by a Finance Panel approval step.

If we could define the Finance Panel step and assign it to follow multiple steps instead of only the one parent which can be assigned at the moment, it would save so much time and effort when creating and maintaining the workflow.

You can vote on the suggestion here.