[MGNLWORKFLOW-184] Active workflows might be unusable after server restart Created: 13/Dec/13 Updated: 19/Dec/13 Resolved: 18/Dec/13 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Magnolia Workflow Module |
| Component/s: | jBPM |
| Affects Version/s: | 5.2 |
| Fix Version/s: | 5.2.1 |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Blocker |
| Reporter: | Daniel Lipp | Assignee: | Philip Mundt |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||
| Template: |
|
||||||||
| Acceptance criteria: |
Empty
|
||||||||
| Task DoD: |
[ ]*
Doc/release notes changes? Comment present?
[ ]*
Downstream builds green?
[ ]*
Solution information and context easily available?
[ ]*
Tests
[ ]*
FixVersion filled and not yet released
[ ] 
Architecture Decision Record (ADR)
|
||||||||
| Bug DoR: |
[ ]*
Steps to reproduce, expected, and actual results filled
[ ]*
Affected version filled
|
||||||||
| Release notes required: |
Yes
|
||||||||
| Date of First Response: | |||||||||
| Description |
|
Right now new ProcessInstances are persisted upon creation but only updated in memory. As a result started ProcessInstances might be in a wrong state after a restart of the server and hence they'll never be executed but simply set to completed and then removed from the persistence layer. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Daniel Lipp [ 18/Dec/13 ] |
|
The problem is that workItem and associated processInstance share a 'mgnlData' map in memory only as long as we don't restart the server in between. After a restart we end up having two maps in memory so adding stuff to the workItems params will not end up having those values in the processInstance's params as well. That's the reason why it crashes then. In jbpm output parameters should be used to hand over params from workItems to processInstances. |
| Comment by Daniel Lipp [ 18/Dec/13 ] |
|
Change is done but needs a version handling. This will be implemented by Philip. |
| Comment by Mikaël Geljić [ 19/Dec/13 ] |
|
Works like a charm Independently of this issue though, As an editor I was expecting to get a pulse when publication is approved (after all I do get one when it's rejected), but obviously we don't have such non-actionable pulse notifications so far. |