Applies to:
Product Release: V7 (Enterprise)Version: 7.8.2.3 [19221] Com/Med
Database: Oracle 9.2.0.7
Application Server OS: Sun Solaris 9
Database Server OS: Sun Solaris 8
This document was previously published as Siebel SR 38-3189671503.
Symptoms
SBL-CFG-00159This is Spawn off from SR 38-3188507514.
We have uploaded another set of logs to the FTP
server. The pstack on this crash seems to indicate that this crashed while invoking the Product
Configurator.
*** Unmangled Call
Stack
CSSCxObjComp::SetFieldValue(SSstring,SSstring) (6a57c2f0, 6a57c238, 6a57c234, 7f99c89c,
70ff24ec, 0) + 134
CSSCfgUIServiceJS::CalculatePriceCX(const
CCFPropertySet&,CCFPropertySet&) (14436f40, 6a57c234, 1790, 144370fc, f9c8738, 1) + c40
CSSCfgUIServiceJS::PackageSubmitRequestResults(CCFPropertySet&,CCFPropertySet&,bool,bool,bool,bool,bool,bool,bool,bool)
(89e85f4, 6a57c480, 6a57cdf4, 6a57c488, 0, 6a57c460) + 528
CSSCfgUIServiceJS::SubmitRequest(const CCFPropertySet&,CCFPropertySet&) (14436f40,
6a57cdfc, 6a57cdf4, 6a57c800, 0, 6a57c7f8) + 1798
Solution
Message 1
For the benefit of others,The customer encountered the following behavior in their environment.
The customer encountered a crash in their eConfigurator with the following callstack.
CSSCxObjComp::SetFieldValue(SSstring,SSstring) (6a57c2f0, 6a57c238, 6a57c234, 7f99c89c, 70ff24ec, 0) + 134
CSSCfgUIServiceJS::CalculatePriceCX(const CCFPropertySet&,CCFPropertySet&) (14436f40, 6a57c234, 1790, 144370fc, f9c8738, 1) + c40
CSSCfgUIServiceJS::PackageSubmitRequestResults(CCFPropertySet&,CCFPropertySet&,bool,bool,bool,bool,bool,bool,bool,bool) (89e85f4, 6a57c480, 6a57cdf4, 6a57c488, 0, 6a57c460) + 528
CSSCfgUIServiceJS::SubmitRequest(const CCFPropertySet&,CCFPropertySet&) (14436f40, 6a57cdfc, 6a57cdf4, 6a57c800, 0, 6a57c7f8) + 1798
CSSCfgUIServiceJS::DoInvokeMethod(const unsigned short*,const CCFPropertySet&,CCFPropertySet&) (14436f40, 699be774, 6a57cdfc, 6a57cdf4, 6a57c89c, 699ad968) + c0
CSSService::InvokeMethod(const unsigned short*,const CCFPropertySet&,CCFPropertySet&) (14436f40, 5e95854, 6a57cdfc, 6a57cdf4, 698bc498, 6a57c9dc) + 268
CSSSWEFrameContainerWebJSHidden::SubmitRequest(CCFPropertySet&,CCFPropertySet&) (120bc9a8, 6a57cdfc, 6a57cdf4, 120bced0, 0, 6a57ccb4) + 6ac
Continued in next activity....
Message 2
Continued from previous activity.............CSSSWEFrameContainerWebJSHidden::DoInvokeMethod(const unsigned short*,CSSStringArray&,SSstring&) (120bc9a8, 164afb94, 6a57cd74, 7f99c8a0, 0, 6a57cdf8) + a14
CSSSWEFrame::InvokeMethod(const unsigned short*,CSSStringArray&,SSstring&) (120bc9a8, 164afb94, 6a57da00, 6a57cfe0, 164afb94, 0) + 120
Etc.
On investigation of the log files it showed the following invokemethod to RemoveItem
InvokeMethod 4 0 2006-11-01 19:38:38 Begin: Business Service 'Configurator Service' invoke method: 'RemoveItem' at 18fc5248
Then is showed the following error:
ObjMgrLog Error 1 0 2006-11-01 19:38:40 (cxobjbase.cpp (125)) SBL-CFG-00159: The Siebel Configurator encountered an internal error. Please report it to your Siebel Administrator.
Destination EAI Property Set Empty.
On reviewing the property set for the Cfg Cx Runtime Hidden Frame (HI) submit request in the log file there was no promotion rule defined.
Promotion Rule Id`undefined`
The customer was running into a known defect outlined in Change Request 12-1FJLGBP for Siebel version 8.0 where AddItem in JavaScripting hangs the URL when the remote parameter is enabled. This behavior was only noticed with remote parameter enabled and in fact it was confirmed that it was caused by action RemoveItem and this defect happens under following conditions:
1. Remote service
2. No active rule
Continued in next activity..........
Message 3
Continued from previous activity.........In this case Fix Request 12-1GRWJ1F was logged to get a patch built for Siebel version 7.8.2.3. Once this patch was installed the customer no longer ran into this crash.
This fix is incorporated into Siebel version 7.8.2.6 Fix Pack.
Thank you,
Oracle | Siebel Technical Support.
Applies to:
Product Release: V7 (Enterprise)Version: 7.7.2.3 [18361] Com/Med
Database: Oracle 9.2.0.7
Application Server OS: Microsoft Windows 2003 Server
Database Server OS: Sun Solaris 5.8
This document was previously published as Siebel SR 38-3035907351.
Symptoms
SBL-CFG-00159We changed the Product Names of 3 products while keeping their ROW_ID’s on S_PROD_INT
intact.
They were then re-arranged in the Product Designer. Two of them, Wireless
IntERstate LD and Wireless IntRAstate LD, were removed from the relationship (domain type =
class) BeyondMobile Voice Features and then readded with their new product names, Mobile
IntERstate LD and Mobile IntRAstate LD. Both of these products are required and there should be
only one of each.
The third product was called Wireless International LD and was in the
relationship (domain type = product) Wireless International LD. This product was renamed to
Mobile International LD and is now part of the relationship Mobile International LD (domain type
= product). This product has cardinality of 1 max, 1 min, 1 default. I believe the relationship
record was deleted and a new one created with the name Mobile International
LD.
Cardinality and quantity rules are no longer working. Customizing the service instance
that was created and the order completed BEFORE releasing this new version of the customizable
product is now adding a duplicate of these products that already exist. For some reason it
doesn't see that they are already there and it adds another one. Customizing a new service
instance that was completed AFTER releasing this new version is NOT adding duplicates of these
products.
I did a comparison of the database records on S_ORDER_ITEM for a service element
that was created before and after the new version of the customizable product was released. The
PROD_IDs remained the same, however I noticed that the PORT_VALID_PROD_ID and PROD_PORT_ID values
are different. When I update the records that were created BEFORE the new version with the
PORT_VALID_PROD_ID and PROD_PORT_ID values that are on the records created AFTER releasing the
new version, and then I customize the Service Instance, the duplicates are not created.
For example I updated the old record to have the new v...
Solution
Message 1
For the benefit of other users:A sub-product was used in a CP model in one product-type relationship (minimum cardinality = 1) and in several (at least 1) class-type relationships (no minimum cardinality).
The CP was added to a sales order associated to an account and made into an asset. The asset showed the sub-product with a quantity of 1, coming from the product-type relationship.
The sub-product name was then changed and the product-type relationship pointing to it was deleted from the CP’s product designer before a new one was created back with type = product. A new CP version was released.
At this point, the asset was modified from the account customer portal, thus bringing a warning message indicating the model change when entering the configuration pages.
When auto-match repaired the sub-product from the now missing relationship, it picked the first relationship the sub-product belonged to, which in this case ended up being the class-type relationship. This is an undetermined behavior though and in some other CP models, auto-match could pick the product-type relationship. That is why, among other reasons, we generally recommend having sub-products belong to only one relationship.
Continuing on, when there was at least one active rule in the CP’s model (related or not to the sub-product), the eCFG engine directly added a new line item with an action type of Add.
[...]
Message 2
[...]When there was no active rule, it did not add the sub-product but instead showed a red star in the selection pages indicating the missing required sub-product.
This is the subject of CR# 12-1HC2FI1. The customer always had rules so this was not an issue for them though.
Then, when the environment variable PRESERVE_ENGINE_AND_USER_PICKS was set to N (the eCFG engine treats every product selection equally, i.e. as a user pick), the pre-existing line item’s action code stayed unchanged as “–“.
When the variable was set to Y, eCFG considered the initial sub-product selection as an engine pick so it dropped it and set the pre-existing line item’s action code to Delete.
Changing product’s name is an essential part of the customer’s requirement/business. Instead of modifying the product name field, the customer was advised to use a custom field as a display name for the product name so the product name itself would not change and stay stable, which ultimately prevents the above confusion in the first place.
Thank you,
No comments:
Post a Comment