topic Re: Job in ACT_RU_JOB not being removed. in Alfresco Archive

Job in ACT_RU_JOB not being removed.

richard1 — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:08:56 GMT

Hello all, I have an interesting problem with a TaskListener that I added to a UserTask for a CREATE event. I would like for it to check for a variable and if set to true set the DelegateTask to complete. I believe the correct way to do this would be to have an ExclusiveGateway before it and have

Re: Job in ACT_RU_JOB not being removed.

frederikherema1 — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:11:03 GMT

Hi,

You shouldn't try to complete the task in a taskListener, it's just asking for trouble. Thats also the reason why the timer is still available even when task is finished, due to the fact that the finishing didn't happen the way it should (as normal flow would do)

Re: Job in ACT_RU_JOB not being removed.

richard1 — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:53:51 GMT

Yes I agree but other than doing it the right way and using an ExclusiveGateway to direct the path around the task we want skipped can you think of a less wrong way? We are trying to avoid the visibility of the UserTask skipping to the diagram and business analyst since skipping is not part of the regular workflow, it is used by the developers to test and force certain scenarios. If skipping were part of the actual flow we would do it the right way, we are just trying to be sneaking.

Thanks for your reply.

Re: Job in ACT_RU_JOB not being removed.

frederikherema1 — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 06:13:21 GMT

I can't think of any other way that just completing the task using the API (not from the taskListeners).
Anyone any other thoughts?

Re: Job in ACT_RU_JOB not being removed.

richard1 — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 22:45:01 GMT

After stepping back I saw the forest through the trees. Most of our user tasks are for automated processing so we have processes that act just like a user, grab a task, work it, then give it back. All this done using Spring Integration, so it is less work for us to build one of these processes to grab a task, do nothing, then give it back. This will do what we wanted, do it the right way, and really be a better test.

Thanks for your help, sorry for being stubborn about forcing it to do it the wrong way.

Re: Job in ACT_RU_JOB not being removed.

frederikherema1 — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 06:50:43 GMT

No problem, have fun using activiti