topic /query/historic-task-instances retrieve wrong task variable data in Alfresco Archive

/query/historic-task-instances retrieve wrong task variable data

aimingxu — Fri, 10 Jun 2016 19:37:28 GMT

When I create a process definition, I used user task listener to set task variables to setup and track status and next status history required by client. I queried act_hi_varinst (select * from act_hi_varinst where proc_inst_id_='1627936' order by ID_) and found that info is correctly inserted as s

Re: /query/historic-task-instances retrieve wrong task variable data

jbarrez — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 12:30:38 GMT

Without knowing what your task listener does .. this is hard to say. Does it set local vars? if so, it could return different variables …

Re: /query/historic-task-instances retrieve wrong task variable data

aimingxu — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 19:33:06 GMT

Yes, the task listener for task create is set to add local variables. Query act_hi_varinst table directly give correct results but activiti rest api /query/historic-task-instances give incorrect results. That is why I think it is a bug of the rest api. Here is the listener implementation in the definition.
<activiti:taskListener event="create" class="org.activiti.engine.impl.bpmn.listener.ScriptTaskListener">
          <activiti:field name="script">
            <activiti:string><![CDATA[status="Assigned";
   nextStatus="Pending Review"; task.setVariableLocal("status", status); task.setVariableLocal("nextStatus", nextStatus);]]></activiti:string>
          </activiti:field>
          <activiti:field name="language">
            <activiti:string><![CDATA[groovy]]></activiti:string>
          </activiti:field>
        </activiti:taskListener>
Aiming

Re: /query/historic-task-instances retrieve wrong task variable data

aimingxu — Mon, 25 Jul 2016 18:36:09 GMT

The issue happens with version 5.19. I can no longer reproduce this issue after we upgraded to version 5.21 recently.

Re: /query/historic-task-instances retrieve wrong task variable data

jbarrez — Wed, 27 Jul 2016 12:17:24 GMT

I vaguely seem to remember that we did work in the area of local variables a couple of months ago indeed.
Glad to hear it's fixed!