Place SFC on Hold by PAPI - sign off settings

[filip_c]

Hello,

I need to place SFC into immediate Hold by using PAPI from MII transaction. The problem is that when I do that, there is automatic sign-off action done before the SFC is placed on hold. I need to prevent that!

Intended behavior is possible from standard ME screen "SFC Place Hold" as it calls activity SU520 and there is settings to prevent SIGNOFF_SFC. But when I call PAPI placeSfcOnImmediateHold, there is no field for such settings and it seems I can't influence the sign-off behaviour.

I can't believe it wouldn't be possible to place SFC on hold without sign-off in MII. Please, anyone knows how to solve this?

Thank you a lot!

[steve_stubbs]

Hi Filip,

What are you doing with the SFC while it is in status HOLD? Are you trying to avoid having to START the SFC after the HOLD is released (when hold placed by PAPI call)?

Regards, Steve

[filip_c]

Hi Steve,

If the SFC is in status hold, we wait till things are sorted out and it can be released again. And when that SFC was already started, we don't want to start it again, because it is confusing for operators and also it is adding new "START" actions in production/activity log, thus any reporting on these actions is wrong afterwards.

When we put SFC on hold from ME screen, it all works fine. Just the PAPI doesn't seem to have such settings.

[steve_stubbs]

Hi Filip,

I cannot find any data in the HOLD* tables in WIP that control if the SFC is or is not placed in queue when the hold is released. Will look some more...

Regards, Steve

[filip_c]

If SFC is active and is placed on Hold by PAPI placeSFCInImmediateHold, putting it in queue actually happens before placing the SFC on hold as SINGOFF action is called as well.

Here is what activity_log looks like for SFC that is placed on Hold by the PAPI. Based on the timestamp and matching ACTIVITY, the SIGNOFF happens together with the HOLD action. And I would need the SIGNOFF not to happen.

[steve_stubbs]

I suspect that the SU520 Activity Rule 'SIGNOFF_SFC' was added as a feature request at some previous ME release, but was never added to the PAPI call. My recommendation is to submit a support ticket and get a response from the support team about this.

Regards, Steve

[sergiy_katerinich]

Hi!

This seems to be a result of SAP Note 2609032.

Regards,

Sergiy

[filip_c]

Hi Sergiy,

thanks for answer. The SAP note makes me really sad, because the behavior described in it as "wrong" is exactly what I need.

I am sad that someone "Extended" that PAPI for signoff action when there is actually a PAPI to do the singoff which could have been called before. And now I can't solve my problem because of that.

[sergiy_katerinich]

You can submit a support ticket to MFG-ME-API component to enhance the PAPI call with one more tag to control Signoff.

Meantime you can try a legacy WS ProductionProcessingIn::PlaceImmediateHold() which might still work the old way.