I have had an Oracle Service Request (SR) open for 3 years now. The request has to do with how slow several security based objects are to be displayed when a user is set up using Oracle’s newer RBAC (Role Base Access Control) security structure. Right now we are working on is the list of concurrent requests.
The SR was originally opened as a severity 2. About a year into the SR, one of my DBAs had some work to do on it and was getting poor response from Oracle support, so he raised the severity to 1. It has been at severity 1 for about 2 years now.
I have gotten several patches from Oracle. The first one we applied showed no change in performance at all. When they released the second patch, I insisted they provide details of what the improvement was so I could confirm A) it actually did improve, and B) they have actually replicated the problem internally. I didn’t want to waste our DBA team’s time applying an alpha stage patch that has been untested.
I never got the proof that the patch was tested. I gave up and had the patch applied. The patch broke the security all together; a user would have no access to concurrent requests at all. Yes it was fast, but it didn’t work.
A third patch was released; it fixed the security, so at least the user would get access, but the performance was 50% slower than an un-patched system.
For several months I have been asking for updates on the SR every week or so, and it get the standard “we are working on it” or “requested status from development” response.
I have poked the bear, per-say, this last week by asking for some manger interaction. Take a look at the latest response I got from them:
Note in the title of the SR I mentioned “W/RBAC.” The first question in this SR update is “Are you using RBAC model to define security?” ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Finding patches that are included as a part of Oracle WMS RUP 11 is not as simple as it could be, so here is a list:
Patch R12.WMS.B.delta.11: Logistics Consolidated RUP11 (VERSION 12.1.1 TO 12.1.3 [RELEASE 12.1])
The following bugs are fixed by this patch:
I have been going though a renovation project for the past 1.5 years in Chicago IL. The contractor, Design Build 4U Chicago, has been an absolute nightmare. More details to come on that.
If you find this page looking for details on the following, please add yourself to this google group.
Contractor: Design Build 4U Chicago
Trade License Number: TGC028355
Owner: John Hochbaum
Vice President: Stephen M. Probst (Stephen Probst; Steve Probst)
John P. Hochbaum Jr.
Working with Oracle Support is frequently frustrating and difficult. Very often Service Requests analysts post updates asking for customer’s to refer to an internal document, stating: “The following note can enhance your experience with Global Customer Services: Note: 166650.1 : Working Effectively With Support.” At this point, I have determined I need to do something similar.
Here is my list to keep in mind to effectively work with customers:
- Before asking a questions or asking for data, review entire SR and it’s attachments to make sure it has not already been provided. If another SR is referenced, please include that in your review.
- Consult Oracle internal experts rather than asking customer how a module works.
- Do not give statements that may be untrue or are assumptions.
- Test all solutions in an internal, Oracle, instance before asking customer to try the solutions. Video evidence of testing may be requested.
- Provide all files in an industry standard formats. Customers should not be required to download proprietary software or codecs.
- Review all files before attaching
- Video files must be understandable, and easy to follow. A beginner should be able to replicate the same actions portrayed in the video.
- Do not constantly indicate that an SR is not responded to within a certain period of time. The same courtesy will be given to you.
- Development instances will not be cloned onto production.
- An SR will not be opened per instance.
- The solution “that is a limitation of the software” or “that is how it works” is not acceptable.
- If documentation does not match the application’s functionality, only a “bug” will be a satisfactory solution.
- If configuration requirements are missing from documentation, and assumed, it is inherently irreverent. And any undesired functionality must be considered a bug.
- Documents on My Oracle Support are not considered documentation unless referenced in the customers software version’s User Guide or Implementation Guide available at publication/release date.
- It is Oracle support’s responsibility to coordinate between Oracle divisions/module development teams.
- Analysts should not expect customer to have direct Unix level access to complete testing or diagnostic work. SQL Plus is considered direct Unix access.
- Any dates or times should be expressed in the customer’s time zone.
- It is the responsibility of an Oracle Analyst to provide a sufficient hand-off of SRs to subsequent analysts. Questions resulting from poor SR transitions may be responded to in a harsh manor.
- Please honor the requested communications method listed on the SR. Any communication initiated that does not match the requested communications method may be treated as if it never happened, unless it is agreed that that method may be used by both parties.
All of these are based on actual experiences.
The following is entered as an enhancement request at Oracle for their E-Business R12 product. I have tried to convince Oracle to categorize this as a bug, but have not had any luck. If you have encountered a similar situation, please log an SR and add yourself to this “ER” and request that it be changed to a bug.
We [Emerson] have an assembly with a BOM where a component is inherited from a phantom assembly into the main assembly as an assembly pull supply type component on operation SEQ 1. The final assembly’s routing begins with operation SEQ 400. When a job is made, the component gets tied to operation SEQ 400. When a WIP move is made to the scrap step of the first operation (400), the assembly pull component is taken out of inventory.
This functionality is described as correct as per WIP User guide.
Oracle® Work in Process User’s Guide Release 12 Part No. B31092-01
When you move assemblies into the Scrap intraoperation step of an operation that has assembly pull components assigned to it, the system backflushes these components and all assembly pull components at prior operations.
This functionality does not seem to be correct. If a component is “assembly pull”, a completion takes it out of inventory at the end of the job. This means the component is acting as assembly pull for a completion, but operation pull for scrap.
If the goal is to take out inventory of assembly pull components when an assembly is completed, than it should not be tied to an operation.
I have been testing Oracle Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) at work to check if it can replace one of our legacy systems. When testing I came across an error that took me days to solve. I finally found the problem!
- Oracle Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) in Oracle E-Business suite R12
- Adding a new Asset Group
- Receive error on save
Insert Procedure Failed with the following error message: 12746302
- Oracle was creating a new item based on the @Asset Group template
- Profile option INV: Default Primary Unit of Measure was set to NULL
- Add a UOM of EA (Each) to the @Asset Group item template
- [or] Add EA (Each) as the value for the profile option INV: Default Primary Unit of Measure
For business reasons, we cannot have a default UOM, so we will likely choose option 1.
A year and a half ago, our company embarked on a project to run Oracle E-business R12. Part of that process included a manufacturing migration from our legacy systems, and the other part included a migration of financial modules from Oracle 11i. Included in the 11i financial modules was Accounts Payable, thus our Payment process needed to be migrated to R12. One of my responsibilities was to create the payment output for the R12 system. Payments in Oracle R12 are rendered with BI Publisher, an Oracle tool I became very skilled with while working on the AP project. Although limited, BI Publisher has to be one of the most powerful technologies Oracle provides and has allowed our IT organization to become more agile.
From what I heard, it took the previous business analyst two years to get a check printed in the 11i production system, starting at the beginning of that project. The R12 Payment processing seemed like a daunting task. But I was up for the challenge and eager to enhance my skill set.
Within the first day of working on the payment output, I was able to get a check printed out of our test system. Two weeks later I had a check ready to send to our bank for validation.
Although my manager was impressed, he still had some doubts. I have a feeling he was thinking around the lines of, “this is too good to be true; how can someone get a check ready for approval so fast, when took so long previously?” Whatever his thinking was, the bank validation had the ability to halt my swift progress right in its tracks.