-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
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
Process Instance Migration: Backend and Frontend Changes to execute a process migration #1671
Comments
This has been deployed to qa5 for testing. |
So if there are 100 instances of a model and if they want to update that model and migrate all the instances, they will have to manually suspend and migrate them one by one for all the 100. Is that how they want to do it? |
@burnettk @jasquat When a message related task/event is active, if we change the Message of that and migrate, there'll be 2 messages for that. The one already created with the old message and the one that got created after the message update. For example |
That doesn't seem ideal but also doesn't seem wrong. Maybe the correct solution is to allow users to manually disable message instances and they will need to be careful about migrating such things. |
@burnettk any thoughts on this? |
Tested migration at unit test level for these. Please let me know if I have missed anything. Manual Task Call Activity Timers Data input/output Guest user task Multi Instance (Loop cardinality, Input collection) Escalation End Event Lanes |
added "Migrate" to the breadcrumb. that isn't deployed anywhere yet. regarding having to suspend and migrate 100 process instances individually, yes, that is understand and this is definitely an area to consider as a future enhancement. we tried to build the simplest thing that could possibly work, but definitely had this potential future use case in mind. |
@burnettk I guess we are going to leave this as it is now? |
Noticed this issue today |
re: "If we add/remove a Signal boundary event to the current active task, it won't allow us to migrate that instance. Is that some thing we need to worry about?" that is expected behavior, yes. "when a user loops back to a task, it doesn't allow me to change it and migrate it, I think because it was already completed once in the previous iteration. I assume that's how it is expected to work." yes, that is expected. cc @essweine just in case i am telling lies. |
Yes, both are expected. |
@burnettk While a Guest task is active, if we remove the Guest Option from that task and migrated it, still it seems to be assigned to the Guest. Is it the expected behaviour? |
Adding a note for later reference (as these are mentioned in different places)
|
@madhurrya the guest task assignment seems like an issue and is an oversight. We do not recreate the HumanTask during migrations but we may need to either recreate or update more properties like assignment. As far as the not migratable message goes, we are limited in what we information we have that will make sense to the user. We may be able to pull a little more info out of the diffs from spiff but uncertain it will make sense. Right now it hasn't been a requirement but it would be a nice to have. |
nah, i don't think anything changed in this regard recently. i'm inclined to ignore migration-related performance issues unless it's very annoying. if it works, i'm happy. |
@burnettk @jasquat @calexh-sar I think I have completed the migration testing. It might be good to document (and inform the client) about these scenarios. and about these known issues |
Incorporated these issues into the documentation as known issues and caveats, thank you. |
Placeholder for future sprint - estimation to be determined, I just put a number in here to help guide expectations. Add some tools to the UI and back-end that will allow you to migrate a process instance to an updated model. Will need to check if the migration is possible, which will require that the process instance is in a state where the changes are "up stream" or not reached yet.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: