Query on AC parameter execution.

RE: Query on AC parameter execution.

anjup136 — Tue, 21 May 2019 05:43:34 GMT

Thanks for your reply. My use case is post-completion of manipulation I should pass to the Integration service so in this case both the data I should pass to the service and the result I am getting back is too huge thats the reason its taking nearly 420 KB. I am exploring whether is there any other way to handle this scenario in appian.

RE: Query on AC parameter execution.

aloks0189 — Mon, 20 May 2019 05:01:52 GMT

As highlighted by other practitioner, you cannot predict the order of executions for the activity class parameters.

As per my understanding, post completion of your manipulation, you are passing these ac variable values to your Interface.

If so, then why don't you execute the same logic on your interface On-load instead of doing it in process?

You can pass both activity parameters to your interface via process and perform your logic within your interface instead of doing it in the process model.

Hope this will help you.

RE: Query on AC parameter execution.

anjup136 — Fri, 17 May 2019 13:40:18 GMT

Process instance is taking more memory because of huge data in the PV's so I was trying whether this can be resolved by using AC parameters.

RE: Query on AC parameter execution.

chandu — Fri, 17 May 2019 11:01:04 GMT

Hi Anjup,

In inputs Tab, The Activity Class parameters does not get populated based on the sequence they are present, So try to save the value in PV so that you can use it in Next Node. BTW, what is your requirement for doing so?

RE: Query on AC parameter execution.

anjup136 — Fri, 17 May 2019 08:18:37 GMT

bradc0001 I have a similar requirement. Lets say I have ac1,ac2,ac3. I am fetching the value in ac3 and populating ac2 and ac1 by using ac3. Based on my observations, its working fine in the reverse order. Just wanted to understand Is it safe to use or the execution sequence may varies sometimes?

RE: Query on AC parameter execution.

bradc0001 — Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:32:25 GMT

This is not best practice as there is no guarantee that ac!A will execute before ac!B on an input even if it is ordered as such. You would need to capture ac!A in a previous step, then you can use the results stored in pv! A in your input for ac!B.

AFAIK, there is no difference in the security and I suspect that the issue is occurring because ac!A has not completed while ac!B is attempting to execute. If you can provide the error message, that may help.