All RDs created under Assign- Class are throwing Runtime Exceptions after Pega is Upgraded to Pega 24.1.1. Any clue why?

We just upgraded our application from Pega 8.5.4 to Pega 24.1.1. In UAT the upgraded version is working fine. but in NFT, all the RDs created under Assign- Class are failing. See the attachment for more information.

RD of Assign- Class Failing.docx (419 KB)

@SamikMallik

The issue you are encountering is due to the report definitions (RDs) using an abstract class ‘Assign’ as the source which does not contain data and cannot be resolved to a concrete class. This is similar to a known issue where runtime exceptions occur when a non templatized table with a source as a page list sourced to an abstract class is loaded. The error indicates that the class might be abstract have no defined keys or descend from Code . To resolve this ensure that the source class for your report definitions is a concrete class that contains data.

Furthermore, you may also want to review the database views in the Pega Platform, as they support reporting on work items with open assignments. Understanding the assignment views in the database can provide insights into the underlying data structure and help in troubleshooting the issue.

For more detailed information on database views in the Pega Platform, you can refer to the “Database views” documentation.

:warning: This is a GenAI-powered tool. All generated answers require validation against the provided references.

Pega Platform 8.6.3 Patch Resolved Issues

Database Views

if you still need help I would suggest that you log a support incident via the MSP and provide the INC id here.

@MarijeSchillern Thanks for your response.

Our only concern is that the issue is only happening in one of the non-prod environments and not anywhere else. We have raised a Pega SR INC-B38705 which I have already mentioned in my last post.

Thanks

Samik

@SamikMallik apologies, I’d missed that. Please continue to work with our GCS team who are investigating your issue.

@SamikMallik I see that INC-B38705 was resolved with the following explanation:

“Client has triggered DB sync which has addressed the issue”