Processes & Forms: Set latest approver instead of WF-Batch as last modifier in infotype
We took our first steps with processes & forms and liked it. Then someone noticed that the user WF-BATCH is always displayed as the last modifier of the infotype if a process has been approved. This is a bit ugly because you can not see who is responsible for the change within the infotype.
In our case it’s about a double approval where the clerk is the last approver. So I decided to implement a soulution for this, so that the latest approver is set as latest modifier instead of WF-BATCH.
In my workflow I added the field approver to the container where i hold the actual last approver. In my last approval step before I save the workflow data I add the approver of the task to the container.
Dataflow looks like this:
So after that i have to import the latest approver from the container in my task where the data is saved to infotype.
No you can copy standard class CL_HRASR00_WF_COMPONENTS -> E.g. ZCL_HRASR00_WF_COMPONENTS
Change method save_form_data_to_db_wd:
**********************************************************************
* Note 1422496: Enable the debugging for background task. *
* To activate debugging execute FM: *
* K_PLAN_WAIT_FOR_DEBUGGING_CTRL with the following *
* parameters. *
* ID_DEBUG_ID = 'HRASR' *
* ID_DEBUG_LEVEL = 'SAVE_FORM_DATA_TO_DB' *
* ID_USERNAME = <User_Name> *
**********************************************************************
CALL FUNCTION c_debug_fm "K_PLAN_WAIT_FOR_DEBUGGING
EXPORTING
id_debug_id = c_debug_id
id_debug_level = c_save_form_data_to_db_wd.
**********************************************************************
* End Note 1422496 *
**********************************************************************
* Call maintain_form_data with activated save to backend (check_only = '')
sy-uname = conv #( approver_in+2 ).
CALL METHOD cl_hrasr00_wf_components=>maintain_form_data_wd
EXPORTING
check_only = ''
workitem_id = workitem_id
form = form
activity = activity
IMPORTING
procstate = procstate
error_category = error_category
error_messages = error_messages
expert_withdraw_button_visible = expert_withdraw_button_visible.Here the special move is to add approver to sy-uname.
You have to add the approver as parameter to the method before.
After that you have to change the basic info of your save task and ad your custom class:
Finally you modify the data flow for the object method and add the approver:
Don’t forget to add the approver to your task container:
After all is done, your latest approver is automatically the latest modifier of the infotyp after approval 🙂
I think it is one out of many ways but it works 😉
Nice blog and write up! .....and yes, there are a few ways to do this.
This topic comes up in EVERY HCM P&F project I have done. There are always discussions about whether or not having WF-BATCH show as the user who changed data is a good or bad thing.
I won't rehash what you did/said here....because, some clients absolutely insist a "real person" show as the person who "touched" the record. However, here is the argument for NOT doing it that way and using/accepting WF-BATCH (standard behavior).
1. Looking at the record, you have NO idea that it was actually part of a process....ie. MANY people involved and made the decision for the update.
2. Given #1, not clear path to "audit" the update.
3. Given #1 and 2, if you make it part of the training/habit of the users that if they see "WF-BATCH" then they know that it was done as part of a process....and then can take that information to go look at EVERYONE involved (for example, use Process Search to locate the actual process that updated the record).
I think this gives the end user a MUCH more clear picture of "why" the update was done more than just "who" did it.
.....and in the end, I follow which ever path the client decides.....but it is nice to know they have the options!
Thanks again and keep blogging!!!!
Not just HCM. There was a question posted just recently how to do similar thing for PO approval. When PO is approved by email, apparently some companies want to see the real user name, not a generic WF/batch user.
Thanks for sharing, Sascha Wächter !
Jelena....I clicked "like" on your post...in fact, I clicked it about 10 times and it never updated.....ugggg.
It happens to me every other day. You have to refresh the page, then it works. One of the SCN "features", I guess. One really needs to be determined to "like" a comment! 🙂