nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

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.

Alternatives to fork process without leaving current task

ebetancu

From a UserTask with more than one outgoing transition, I want to be able to tell the workflow engine to execute or follow one of those transitions without abandoning/completing the current UserTask. Later, I would join the flows using an InclusiveGateway.

The way I could get this to work was introducing signal boundary events to my process model. Therefore, using @cancelActivity, I was able to tell the process whether leaving the current UserTask or not.

I am not sure if the use of signals is the right approach for what I needed, and/or if there could be other alternatives for it.

Thanks in advance,

Esteban

Find more posts tagged with

Alfresco Process Services

Comments

salaboy

Can you share your process model?

You can usually use the output of the task to decide in a gateway based on the output.

So abandoning a task is just setting a variable to demarcate that the task was abandonded, then you can use that to make the decision of what to do next.

ebetancu

Hi Mauricio,

My current process model is similar to "MyProcess1.bpmn". With this process model I am able to execute "servicetask1" as many times as needed without abandoning "usertask1" (due to the boundary event with @cancelActivity="false").

According to your previous comment, I guess you may be suggesting something like "MyProcess2.bpmn", where a decision is made in "exclusivegateway1" based on the variable "taskOutput". If so, I would rather stick with "MyProcess1.bpmn", as it does not force the workflow to abandon "usertask1" in order to execute "servicetask1".

Is there an alternative to "MyProcess1.bpmn" where users can execute "servicetask1" (from "usertask1") without using signals and without abandoning/re-entering to "usertask1"?

Thanks in advance,

Esteban

I think that the question is: what are you trying to achieve? Which kind of use case are you trying to implement that you prefer not to abandon a task?

Understanding the business scenario will definitely help to propose alternative solutions.

ebetancu

1. When technicians are working on an X manufacturing process, each technician needs to be able to complete its "manufacturing step", so that/before the next manufacturing step can take place.

2. While a technician is working on its manufacturing step, the technician may request "job evaluations" (zero or many).

3. Job evaluations will occur in parallel to the manufacturing process (technicians should not stop/abandon their work, while the job evaluation is made).

4. Technicians do not need to wait for job evaluations to complete the manufacturing step.

5. All job evaluation requests need to be addressed before the manufacturing process is completed.