TaskService.createAttachment requires taskID?

As we transition to the new Hyland Community, some post links may be temporarily disrupted as we finalize redirects. We apologize for the inconvenience and are working to resolve this as quickly as possible. Details.

davidk1

Hi,

after upgrading from 5.10 to 5.11 my code stops running.

When calling method taskService.createAttachment(   "xx",
                  null,
                  instanceID,
                  "Letter",
                  "-",
                  "http://server");

I get now the exception:

6.12.2012 21:03:24 org.activiti.engine.impl.interceptor.CommandContext close
SEVERE: Error while closing command context
org.activiti.engine.ActivitiException: taskId is null
        at org.activiti.engine.impl.cmd.NeedsActiveTaskCmd.execute(NeedsActiveTaskCmd.java:42)
        at org.activiti.engine.impl.interceptor.CommandExecutorImpl.execute(CommandExecutorImpl.java:24
        at org.activiti.engine.impl.interceptor.CommandContextInterceptor.execute(CommandContextInterce
        at org.activiti.engine.impl.interceptor.LogInterceptor.execute(LogInterceptor.java:32)
        at org.activiti.engine.impl.TaskServiceImpl.createAttachment(TaskServiceImpl.java:279)
        at vf.service.CreateLiveDocListener.notify(CreateLiveDocListener.java:41)

……
   
I cannot find any method to retrieve the taskID from context:

public class CreateLiveDocListener implements ExecutionListener {
   public void notify(DelegateExecution execution) throws Exception {

   }
}

Regards

jbarrez

Yes, I made that mistake. While introducing the suspend/activate functionality, I overzealously made the taskId mandatory. Sorry about that.
The fact there were no tests doesn't help either (*that* was *not* my fault 😉 )

I fixed it on master: https://github.com/Activiti/Activiti/commit/528f4bd9cb05c11f2b265a73958b90e77ab791a1

What you can do:
- Wait until we publish a 5.12 snapshot next week
- Copy the CreateAttachmentCmd, include it in your source code and run it through the command executor instead of calling the service.

And yes, I added a test which tests this use case …