Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Updating Workflow asembly does not add additional In/Out arguments #16

Open
LeszekSzejka opened this issue Nov 22, 2016 · 7 comments
Open
Assignees

Comments

@LeszekSzejka
Copy link

After registering custom workflow activity with eg. 1 input argument any next assembly update via tool does not ADD new arguments, eg. new input and/or output.

Same operation via SDK version does that.

@shytikov
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks, that's interesting case, actually...

Can you give me version of your CRM organization? Is it Online or OnPrem?

I have seen similar behavior before, though it was more about caching old assemblies by async workers, so it took some addition time to update in CRM...

@shytikov shytikov self-assigned this Nov 22, 2016
@rappen
Copy link
Member

rappen commented Nov 22, 2016

I have also seen this on occasion, and I think updating build number makes CRM pick upp new arguments.

@LeszekSzejka
Copy link
Author

It is 2016 IFD.

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Alexey Shytikov [email protected]
wrote:

Thanks, that's interesting case, actually...

Can you give me version of your CRM organization? Is it Online or OnPrem?

I have seen similar behavior before, though it was more about caching old
assemblies by async workers, so it took some addition time to update in
CRM...


You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#16 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AM3EuyM9-ZtmlsOMQInWFPgBdI1d8tySks5rAsUdgaJpZM4K5IGN
.

@LeszekSzejka
Copy link
Author

SDK PluginRegistration tool does not require incrementing dll version, even
the build number.
It looks like after initial registering the workflow activity is not being
updated - the summary window after updating assembly is showing only that
assembly has been updated, not the required workflow activity.

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Jonas Rapp [email protected]
wrote:

I have also seen this on occasion, and I think updating build number makes
CRM pick upp new arguments.


You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#16 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AM3EuxgjREFdiRtSb6i5AolLv09x8ixgks5rAsdZgaJpZM4K5IGN
.

@yagasoft
Copy link

This issue has been described in detail in a Microsoft article. I summarised it in my blog post below and added an automation feature for it in my Visual Studio extension as well.
https://blog.yagasoft.com/2021/12/missing-custom-step-parameters-oracle-series

I would like to add the following to this plugin (already implemented in the extension above), would that be of interest?

  • Select a Plugin Assembly (or Type_s_) as the source and another assembly/type as the target
    • All Plugin Steps will be migrated to their respective type if found
    • All WFs that use a Custom Step in the target assembly will be upgraded to use the new assembly
  • Source: Plugin Steps (across different assemblies/types as well), Target: Plugin Type
    • Move steps to the target type
  • Source: Plugin Steps (across different assemblies/types as well), Target: Plugin Assembly
    • Move steps to their respective type in the target

Please let me know if you would like to add/improve/replace any of those features.

@imranakram
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks, we have a plugin available for similar functionality called StepManipulationTool https://www.xrmtoolbox.com/plugins/Innofactor.XTB.StepManipulationTool/

@yagasoft
Copy link

That's interesting indeed. I checked it out and it does fit some of the requirements.

I have a couple of questions, please:

  1. Does it handle WF Custom Steps?
  2. Can it automatically match the source Plugin Type, or does the user have to migrate each type individually?

For a plugin assembly upgrade, I feel that the Plugin Registration's UI is a bit more user friendly for such an operation. What do you think?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants