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.

Add variable copy to call activity

bernd_ruecker

See http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/ACT-560.

I currently asked Tom:
–
Is it possible to add own extensions in the activiti-bpmn-extensions-5.0.xsd? Or when is that allowed?
Or do we have to work with the existing ones?
–

Depending on that answer we can define, how the XML configuration should look like.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

jbarrez

Bernd, this question already came up in the forum a few times, so yes I would like to see it implemented.
There was even already an issue for it: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/ACT-354

The BPMN spec has a way of defining the variable mapping, but involves all the ioSpecification stuff, which we didnt do yet because it is too cumbersome.
So a shortcut for this cumbersome XML is indeed wanted in this case.

Is it possible to add own extensions in the activiti-bpmn-extensions-5.0.xsd? Or when is that allowed?
Or do we have to work with the existing ones?

The rule here is that when a new element is added in a certain release, you must create a newer xsd (ie activiti-bpmn-extensions-5.2.xsd).
The give a ping, so I can upload it to activiti.org.

So if you are to implement the feature you would need (besides the code):
- How the XML would look like (preferably discussed here in the forum)
- Tests added to the CallActivityAdvancedTest
- documentation

bernd_ruecker

Hi Joram.

Thanks for the quick answer. **** it, I quickly searched for an issue but missed it 😉 I marked it as duplicate. Then we will propose an XML structure, I agree that we should have shortcut XML way for doing this (the standard way could be added later on as alternative I think).

Quick proposal for the XML:

<br><callActivity id="callCheckCreditProcess" name="Check credit" calledElement="checkCreditProcess"><br>&nbsp; <extensionElements><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <activiti:dataInput name="x" expression="#{myVar.x}" /><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <activiti:dataInput name="y" stringValue="test" /><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <activiti:dataInput name="z" variable="z" /><br>&nbsp; </extensionElements><br></callActivity><br>

x,y & z would be the variables in the subprocess. What do you think?

The dataOutput (return values) is still missing, I will add that if we can somehow agree on the basics…

Thanks
Bernd

tombaeyens

I think we should also investigate the longer ioSpecification format. If it is only extra parsing, then we should consider implementing it to keep being spec compliant.

tombaeyens

I'm not yet sure about the name dataInput. I'ld like to verify if it is possible to use the same names for all the use cases like these:
* sub processes
* task properties
* activity/scope local variables

i guess there are more situations. just don't remember it right now. any one else an idea which other situations we might need similar things?

jbarrez

Accodring to the BPMN spec, all activities could potentially have input/output

This is a shortcut we already have for webservices:

<br> <dataInputAssociation><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <sourceRef>NewCounterValueVariable</sourceRef><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <targetRef>value</targetRef><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </dataInputAssociation><br>

And this is the longer version:

<br> <ioSpecification><br>&nbsp;&nbsp; <dataInput itemSubjectRef="tns:setToRequestItem" id="dataInputOfServiceTask" /><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <inputSet><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <dataInputRefs>dataInputOfServiceTask</dataInputRefs><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </inputSet><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <outputSet /><br> </ioSpecification><br> <dataInputAssociation><br>&nbsp;&nbsp; <sourceRef>dataInputOfProcess</sourceRef><br>&nbsp;&nbsp; <targetRef>dataInputOfServiceTask</targetRef><br>&nbsp;&nbsp; <assignment><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <from>${dataInputOfProcess.newCounterValue}</from><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <to>${dataInputOfServiceTask.value}</to><br>&nbsp;&nbsp; </assignment><br> </dataInputAssociation><br>

Both snippets do the same. Both are spec compliant, however the first one is stretching it a bit.

bernd_ruecker

Okay, then I would first go for the shortcut and get that running with the functionality and the tests.

Adding the extra parsing as a second step should be easy then afterwards, and I don't want to risk the code freeze date for that?

So this is it?

<br>&nbsp; <dataInputAssociation><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <sourceRef>counter</sourceRef><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <targetRef>newCounter</targetRef><br>&nbsp; </dataInputAssociation><br>&nbsp; <dataOutputAssociation><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <sourceRef>newCounter</sourceRef><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <targetRef>counter</targetRef><br>&nbsp; </dataOutputAssociation><br>

jbarrez

Yup, that's spec compliant, without having to worry about the ioSpecification stuff.

bernd_ruecker

But then we just pass variables "as-is", no possibility to add expressions or the like for the moment? Do we think that's a problem? Actually I could live with that, at least for the moment… Hey, then we even do not need to adjust the extensions schema, problem solved 🙂

bernd_ruecker

Hi Joram.

There is one downside of this shortcut, we have to turn schema validation of, since it expects IDREF for sourceRef and targetRef, which we do not have. In think then the shortcut gets ugly! And we misuse the BPMN elements. Wouldn't it be better to got for an clear own extension instead then?

Cheers
Bernd

bernd_ruecker

Okay, for the moment I added a switch to disable schema validation in the @Deployment annotation, so the tests works (the WS stuff disabled that as well!).

And another thing that puzzled me:

<br>AtomicOperationProcessEnd<br><br>&nbsp; @Override<br>&nbsp; protected void eventNotificationsCompleted(InterpretableExecution execution) {<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; execution.destroy();<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; execution.remove();<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; // and trigger execution afterwards<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; if (superExecution!=null) {<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; superExecution.setSubProcessInstance(null);<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ActivityImpl activity = (ActivityImpl) superExecution.getActivity();<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; SubProcessActivityBehavior subProcessActivityBehavior = (SubProcessActivityBehavior) activity.getActivityBehavior();<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; try {<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; subProcessActivityBehavior.completed(superExecution);<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; } catch (Exception e) {<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; log.log(Level.SEVERE, "Error while completing sub process of execution " + execution, e);<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; }<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; }<br>&nbsp; }<br>

Why is the exception just catched and logged? Shouldn't be this exception propagated and cause a rollback?

I will commit a proposal in a couple of minutes, if the test suite passes locally.

Thanks and cheers
Bernd

mvharish

In our project there is a need of passing some default values from the BPMN file for which I was hoping to add elements to the part extensionelements so is there a way to edit the existing xsd file to add custom elements and attributes?

jbarrez

Custom elements can be added to the extension elements in the xml. There is no need to add it to the xsd if it's in the extension element.

You would need to add parser handling for those specific elements, to handle them at parse time.