Let me clarify a bit.  The documentation states that you can add the Run 
Process action Application-Release-Pending between each of the actions to get 
what I'm looking for and mentions that it can be used in escalations.  However, 
since it normally runs in phase 3, you have to use the special filter naming 
convention to override filter phasing for it to be applied properly between the 
push fields actions.  I guess my question boils down to this: do filter phases 
apply in escalations, and if they do, can you add `! to the escalation name to 
override phasing just like you do with filters?

Thanks,
Lyle

From: Lyle Taylor
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 4:05 PM
To: 'arslist@ARSLIST.ORG'
Subject: Filter Phasing and Escalations

Hi All,

Can anyone tell me if filter phasing applies to escalations?  I have a 
three-step process involving two forms, and I need to guarantee that certain 
actions happen in a specific order.  I'm also trying to process records in 
batches, so I have an escalation that does something like this:


1.       Set the status of all records in Form A to "Process"

2.       Set the field "Process Now" in Form B

3.       Set the status of all records in Form A whose status is still 
"Process" to "No Configuration Matched"

Basically, Form A contains records to be processed, and new records can be 
added to it at any time.  Form B contains configurations that map back to zero 
or more records in Form A.

At intervals, I set the status of all new records in Form A to Process.  Then I 
trigger the processing of those records from Form B by setting a field that 
triggers the processing workflow.  As part of that, the status of all records 
that got processed get set to a status that indicates they have been processed. 
 I then want to set the status of any remaining records that were tagged for 
processing but that didn't match any configurations in Form B to "No 
Configuration Matched".

So, the question is, how can I guarantee that all records get processed in 
action 1 before action 2 gets processed, and that all records affected by 
processing related to action 2 (including affected records in Form A) get 
processed before action 3 fires?

Does that make sense?

Thanks,
Lyle


 NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) 
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized 
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all 
copies of the original message.



_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
Platinum Sponsor:rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"

Reply via email to