If previous processes are not yet completed if you change existing CDT(Adding ad

@marky Not sure if you have come across a specific scenario, but passing the arguments via keyword is really a good approach as per my knowledge. I am even sure that Appian recommends this kind of approach. Because this approach, in the first place prevents breakage of instances when there are some changes in rule inputs which may or may not significantly influence the output. I would like to oppose to the statement that it's dangerous and further would like to say that it's suggested to prevent breakage. We can see this implementation in many examples in the documentation as well.

When it comes to in-flight stuff, it depends on how we handle the changes - If we are able to handle the changes by using the same rule by considering the null values (and considering a particular point of datetime when the release is made), we can proceed with handling the same rule. This was our chosen approach and it worked very efficiently and without any issues.

Else we can create a copy of the rule, and further invoke a rule based on the datetime a release is made. I guess this should be chosen when handling the changes in existing interface becomes quite complicated or choosing this approach may also depend on individual's thought process, as it is also a kind of strategy.

Creating a new version as and when the rule inputs change might not be a great idea and best fit every time, as it is completely based on the use-case.

Probably it might be worth discussing your use-case so that we might be able to learn some new thing out of it, but definitely passing arguments via keyword is something which we shouldn't skip as per my knowledge.

@marky Not sure if you have come across a specific scenario, but passing the arguments via keyword is really a good approach as per my knowledge. I am even sure that Appian recommends this kind of approach. Because this approach, in the first place prevents breakage of instances when there are some changes in rule inputs which may or may not significantly influence the output. I would like to oppose to the statement that it's dangerous and further would like to say that it's suggested to prevent breakage. We can see this implementation in many examples in the documentation as well.

When it comes to in-flight stuff, it depends on how we handle the changes - If we are able to handle the changes by using the same rule by considering the null values (and considering a particular point of datetime when the release is made), we can proceed with handling the same rule. This was our chosen approach and it worked very efficiently and without any issues.

Else we can create a copy of the rule, and further invoke a rule based on the datetime a release is made. I guess this should be chosen when handling the changes in existing interface becomes quite complicated or choosing this approach may also depend on individual's thought process, as it is also a kind of strategy.

Creating a new version as and when the rule inputs change might not be a great idea and best fit every time, as it is completely based on the use-case.

Probably it might be worth discussing your use-case so that we might be able to learn some new thing out of it, but definitely passing arguments via keyword is something which we shouldn't skip as per my knowledge.