MEC thinks my custom agreement is deactivated even though it's active

Hi everyone,

I am facing a strange problem in the M3 CE with MEC being unable to execute my custom agreement because apparently it thinks it's deactivated even though it appears perfectly active in EC Admin > Server > Agreement Status.

The agreement is a so-called Extensibility 4 type, i.e. I created it from scratch in the Agreements group.

The EC event log shows this cryptic message:

"Agreement [...] is deactivated. Message detection for this agreement is turned off."

I have already deactivated and reactivated this agreement a few times with no progress.

Searching Infor Concierge didn't bring up any useful information.

Any idea what could be wrong here?

Thanks in advance!

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

All comments

Tim Askerov

SOLUTION:

The name of the document used on the agreement's Detection tab didn't match the BOD noun in the name of the MEC map executed by the agreement. I had to change the document name to make it work. Up until now I was under the impression that the name of the map didn't really matter for custom Extensibility 4 agreements but apparently I was wrong.

Nichlas Karlsson

The name of a mapping used in an Extensibility 4 agreement does not matter. For Extensibility 3 the mapping name is important as it has to match the document root name, decides the detection and custom BOD agreement name according to the naming rules.

There must be something else going on here. Maybe duplicate detection, which is not allowed.

BTW When you use Extensibility 4 agreements for BODs the BODs will be in ANY format in ION. You may need to convert to BOD format using scripting.

Tim Askerov

Hi Nichlas!

That's what I thought too, but in this case renaming the BOD in the M3BEBOD published by the EA rule to match the noun of the mapping in the agreement somehow fixed the problem. There was no duplicate detection as both the mapping name and the original BOD name were unique as far as I can tell. I am very puzzled because I have created other Extensibility 4 agreements in the past where mappings didn't match the trigger BOD's noun and didn't follow any naming conventions at all.

The unique requirement of this particular agreement was that it runs not one but two mappings (i.e. two XML Transform processes) one after the other:

The standard Infor mapping.
Our custom mapping that takes the standard BOD generated by the first mapping and enhances/updates it according to the client's requirements.

The noun of the trigger BOD's name had to match the first mapping's noun, so I wonder if there's something special about the Infor standard mappings. If I have time I will play with it some more to get to the bottom of this.

As for the ANY to BOD format conversion, if I need a custom document to be a BOD in ION I delete the automatically created ANY document in Object Schemas and recreate it with the exact same name but with type BOD.

Copyright © 2025 Infor. All rights reserved.