Contradiction in XOR Evaluation Order Documentation

Certified Associate Developer

This is more of a PSA post rather than a question, but I thought I'd put it up here to a) help anyone else out who is confused by this and b) hopefully get Appian's attention to fix this (I will also make a support case for this issue).

This is regarding how the XOR node in the process modeler evaluates multiple conditions. Looking at how the Decision tab is laid out (with IF...ELSE IF...ELSE IF labels and the ability to change the order of the conditions) my first thought would be that the conditions evaluate in order from top to bottom.

However, in the documentation for this node it states: 

  • "Conditions are evaluated in bulk, without regard to the order in which you list them."
  •  "Do not stack gateway conditions such that the first condition must execute before the second condition is evaluated. To avoid this, write the primary condition into the secondary one to ensure that the desired logic takes precedence." 

But then in other places the same page states: 

  • "Each outgoing path is assigned a condition. The conditions are evaluated according to their top-to-bottom ranking. As soon as a True condition is discovered, the workflow takes the associated path."  
  • "If you have more than one condition, reorder them so that they are evaluated in proper sequence. The first condition listed is the first to be evaluated." 

The actual behavior of the XOR node indicates that the order of the conditions does not matter, all are evaluated simultaneously. I hope that Appian changes the behavior of the node to execute conditions in order as this would be much more useful.

If I have misunderstood anything in the documentation, please feel free to correct me, because as of now I don't really see any value to an XOR node when compared to an OR node.

  Discussion posts and replies are publicly visible

Parents Reply Children
  • 0
    Certified Lead Developer
    in reply to James Lepone

    that kinda makes sense I suppose - it's just unfortunate that we are thus forced to do some (sometimes unexpected and sometimes painful) bending-over-backwards to redundantly error-check in multiple subsequent evaluation conditions to prevent crashes.  it seems like a little bit of try() trickery in the back-end could magic this away, in such a way that we only see errors generated when the row in question is actually reached(?!?)