anonymous wrote : Your help has been invaluable.
I know ;-)
Need some contractors? hahaha
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4236139#4236139
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4236139
___
thanks for your help, I am working on rewriting it to remove all the non-fully
nested loops. Your help has been invaluable.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4236126#4236126
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting
It's not that it won't work what you try, but you e.g. should end tasks when
there are tasks, not signal tokens in tasknodes.
And where does it go wrong in your test? I get the
junit.framework.ComparisonFailure: propose should be at join1
expected:<[join1]> but was:<[auto-signoff-adj]>
That c
hmm... strange... then you should have no visual layout... well, I already got
'something' that looks kind of useful.
You should really look into your fork.join constructs. Most are not correct.
Things like having one transition of a fork going to the node before (propose
adjustments) is not co
unfortunately, i dont have a gdp.xml file, not sure why not.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4236084#4236084
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4236084
__
Ok, one initial remark. A fork should always have *one* corresponding join. ALL
tokens that start in a fork should have one common join as the first join they
can encounter!
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4236082#4236082
Reply to the post :
h
do you have the gpd.xml file as well? I cannot get it layed-out nicely
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4236079#4236079
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4236079
Here is the 1 failing test, the other 2 work.
| @Test
| public void testWithMultipleAdjustmentsProcessNoApprove() throws
Exception
| {
| ProcessDefinition def =
ProcessDefinition.parseXmlResource("workflow/ny-workflow-2/processdefinition.xml");
|
oh, and one more thing, it would be nice if you could reduce the test to a
minimal one. Just showing this one issue.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4236063#4236063
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=r
ah, sorry, I missed the thrid time :-)
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4236060#4236060
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4236060
___
jboss-user maili
nope, not even the second time : -)
Use [ c o d e ] [ / c o d e ] tags around it, without the spaces.
Ont small thing though. If it is not to much trouble, the example I referred to
had everyting in one file. The processdefinition as a string and the
actionhandlers as inner classes. That way I
sorry, im new to all this :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pnlSignOffMOAssignmentHandler
| jbpmConfiguration
|
2nd time lucky...
pnlSignOffMOAssignmentHandler
jbpmConfiguration
Thanks, Junit and jbpm xml file are below.
package com.jpmorgan.orion.workflow.ny;
import org.jbpm.graph.def.ProcessDefinition;
import org.jbpm.graph.exe.ProcessInstance;
import org.junit.Test;
import com.jpmorgan.orion.workflow.service.BaseManagerTestCase;
/**
* Phil Segal
* @date @14 May 2
if you have the unittest, please post it. Then I can see what you do instead of
guessing or reading text ;-)
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4235864#4235864
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=
Im not sure whether the signalling of tasks ie task.signal has the save
behaviour as the direct signalling on the token object. Also, is the token
object uniquely identified by something other than its name? ie its path
parent/child? I am trying to work out thru junits what the constraints are,
If you manually signal tokens, a non fully nested fork/join might work, but
that behaviour is not guaranteed to stay/be the same over versions.
What do you mean by 'how task signalling works'? You end a task and the token
continues if the other attributes on the task node allow it to. By defaul
It seems that within my Junit test i can have non-fully contained fork/joins,
and that provided i get the correct child token (and childs-child etc) to
signal, then it works succesfully.
Is there any documentation on how taskInstance signalling works? Since I think
maybe the problem is more to
yes, that is what fully contained/nested means
Regarding do's/dont's, this is the most important one, together with 'do not
loop for polling the existence of a file' kind of things.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4235849#4235849
Reply to
Hi,
Thanks for the feedback, I will build the junit and get back to you, tho i may
have spotted something. Do the internal fork/joins have to be totally self
contained? At the moment I have transitions from within the internal f/j that
goes to the outer one. Would this cause the issue? Is there
Should work. Can you make a unittest that demonstrates the problem? Please make
the unittest like:
http://fisheye.jboss.com/browse/~raw,r=4398/JbpmSvn/jbpm3/trunk/modules/core/src/test/java/org/jbpm/job/executor/JobExecutorDbTest.java
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?mod
21 matches
Mail list logo
