Skip to main content

*FIXED* #ProjectServer2013 bug? - cannot close in progress timesheet periods

Timesheet periods cannot be closed "bug"(?):

 ** UPDATE:  THIS IS NOW FIXED WITH THE JUNE 2013 CUMULATIVE UPDATE FOR PROJECT SERVER 2013 **
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2817341

 The following has been repro'd on 
- an Project Server 2013 (RTM) - next step is June CU
- project online

 Repro:
- Create a number of resources/users
- Set up timesheet periods
- Test 1: TS periods can be closed
- Create a timesheet (one user)
- Save timesheet
- Test 2: Close timehseet period (same period as timesheet created in) = Result - TS period cannot be closed 

 Note:  you can also note a javascript error in IE at line 1409.  When you look at the source code, this appears to point to a page with the URL /pwa/_Layouts/15/pwa/admin/PeriodCloseConfirmation.aspx
Now I don't know if this is a legacy page or not, but if you navigate to this page you see this (which is exactly what I want to see when closing a period)
So what this means if this means is:- if you are running timesheets it is impossible to exempt some users from timesheets submission as periods wont be able to be closed!! 

 Another fail in this is that the Timesheet Status flag is extremely unreliable. I have seen many examples where a timesheet returns to 0 State (not submitted) event when it is approved. This will also trigger this failure to close timesheet periods.

 It's my belief that this is not by design behavior due to the existence of this page, which suggests it is an override to allow periods to be closed:

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Restoring PWA Site to another Web App in the same Farm

The scenario is this: SharePoint 2016 Farm with Project Server Two Web Apps Development UAT One PWA on Development Web App. I want to copy the PWA Site on Development web app to UAT to support a testing cycle. As far as I knew there were two options: 1) Content Database Restore and Attach Process would be backup your Dev Content Database, Restore to a new Content Database for QA, then mount the database on the appropriate web app and your off.... Problem:  Although you can do this with the -AssignNewDatabaseID switch in Powershell (to avoid two content db's having the same database id) the Site Collection (PWA) in the db still retains its SiteID which means there is a duplicate SiteID in the Configuration Database.  This stops the PWA site being created and alllocated correctly and becomes essentially orphaned. This method is only any good for MOVING not COPYING Back to the drawing board... 2) Backup-SPSite / Restore-SPSite I didn't believe this ...
1 comment
Read more

SP2 released

Office Project Server 2007 Sp2 has now been released.  see the details here - http://blogs.msdn.com/chrisfie/archive/2009/04/28/announcing-service-pack-2-sp2-for-microsoft-project-2007-and-microsoft-project-server-2007.aspx .  see teh webcast here http://blogs.msdn.com/brismith/archive/2009/04/28/project-server-2007-service-pack-2-sp2-is-now-available.aspx Blogged with the Flock Browser
Post a Comment
Read more

Reporting from Project Server 2016 - multiple sites and userviews

Just a quickie... I've been interested in how MS have handled the "multiple PWA sites in a Content DB" thing since I read that this was their new approach.  Most of my reporting is via SSRS so i am reliant (still... in 2016) on DB queries rather than OData feeds (tsk) and this "querying a PWA DB with more than one PWA site in it is unsupported" quote was worrying me. So it looks like what is happening is this. When you create the first PWA site in a Content DB it hard-codes the SiteID into the _Userview view design elements.  This means that your first PWA Site is the default.  All the data for subsequent sites are still held in the tables against separate SiteID's but you cannot utilise the OOTB _Userview components (see below) SELECT        ProjectFields.... FROM            pjrep.MSP_TVF_EpmProject('FF19B767-CA6D-4C4C-B123-C0B5AE5354D6') AS MSP_EpmProject  LEFT OUTER JOIN         ...
Post a Comment
Read more