Quering Ad-Hoc tasks with particular task and process params

Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
01-19-2016 08:11 AM
Hi All,
we see the following unexpected behaviour quering an Ad-Hoc Task with an or() query including particular task query params and process query params.
If we perform a TaskQuery or a HistoricTaskInstanceQuery for an Ad-Hoc Task with an or() including e.g. taskId() and processDefinitionKey() in the or() part, the Ad-Hoc task is not in the result list.
This seemed to be caused by the inner join, configured in the corresponding mapping in /org/activiti/db/mapping/entity/Task.xml and HistoricTaskInstance.xml
If we replace this with a left outer join, the query seems to be work as exepcted.
Is it a bug and if yes, would it help, if we contribute a bug ticket ?
Unit Test is attached:
we see the following unexpected behaviour quering an Ad-Hoc Task with an or() query including particular task query params and process query params.
If we perform a TaskQuery or a HistoricTaskInstanceQuery for an Ad-Hoc Task with an or() including e.g. taskId() and processDefinitionKey() in the or() part, the Ad-Hoc task is not in the result list.
This seemed to be caused by the inner join, configured in the corresponding mapping in /org/activiti/db/mapping/entity/Task.xml and HistoricTaskInstance.xml
If we replace this with a left outer join, the query seems to be work as exepcted.
Is it a bug and if yes, would it help, if we contribute a bug ticket ?
Unit Test is attached:
@Rulepublic ActivitiRule activitiRule = new ActivitiRule(); @Test@Deployment(resources = {"org/activiti/test/my-process.bpmn20.xml"})public void test() { TaskService taskService = activitiRule.getTaskService(); Task task = taskService.newTask(); taskService.saveTask(task); List<Task> tasks = taskService.createTaskQuery().or().taskId(task.getId()).processDefinitionKey("xyz").endOr().list(); assertTrue(!tasks.isEmpty());}
Labels:
- Labels:
-
Archive
1 REPLY 1
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
01-21-2016 03:28 AM
It looks like a bug, yes. Afaics, that query should return the result.
