Exception Processing with Timer and Rule

We have several Process Model that have nodes for user tasks.  A lot of these nodes need to terminate based on a couple of decisions.  The first being a timer (that is configured to skip this node when the timer expires) and the second being a rule such as "and(not(pv!isManageSubmit),pv!isUnlock)".  We are seeing a lot of orphaned processes that never complete and most seem to be stuck on a node with this type of a configuration.  In one process we were able to put the rule before the node in an XOR and just have the timer for the exception and it works great.  Has anyone else experienced this situation?  Is this a bad practice?

Thanks in advance for any information someone can share.

  Discussion posts and replies are publicly visible

Parents
  • I agree with Chris above, this might require some sort of screenshot showing how and where your process instances are stuck.

    Just a hunch (but not sure if this is directly related), instead of using an AND() statement in a rule node, you should just add separate expression inputs for each part, since the rule already functions like AND().  This is partly because the AND() function itself has a quirk (last i checked) where it will evaluate NULL values as if they're TRUE, causing unintended side-effects sometimes.  My suggestion here merely simplifies this somewhat.

Reply
  • I agree with Chris above, this might require some sort of screenshot showing how and where your process instances are stuck.

    Just a hunch (but not sure if this is directly related), instead of using an AND() statement in a rule node, you should just add separate expression inputs for each part, since the rule already functions like AND().  This is partly because the AND() function itself has a quirk (last i checked) where it will evaluate NULL values as if they're TRUE, causing unintended side-effects sometimes.  My suggestion here merely simplifies this somewhat.

Children