Jump to content

New Status does not clear Sub Statuses

Martyn Houghton

By Martyn Houghton
in Service Manager

 Share

Recommended Posts

Martyn Houghton Grand Master

Martyn Houghton

Posted
Posted

Our workflow at the moment sets the primary status to 'New' when it is first get assigned to our 1st Tier Team and again when it is then assigned on to the 2nd Tier Team.

In the latter stage, the workflow is setting the parent status to 'New' as before, but the Sub Status is not being cleared as there is no sub statuses supported under the 'New' status.

I have tried updating the BPM to manually set the Sub Status value to blank, but the BPM then fails. Therefore there does not appear to be away to clear a sub status when changing the status to 'New'.

Cheers

Martyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Martyn Houghton Grand Master

Martyn Houghton

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This also appears to be the case when resolving as well. It is possible to set the case as Resolved which does no support sub statuses and the sub status from it's previous state is retained. 

When a parent status is changed to one which does not have sub-statuses (New & Resolved), the sub status value needs to be cleared.

 

resolve_sub.PNG.cf64a5ed8146e9eba36c2a840f81cc5c.PNG

Cheers

Martyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
David Hall Experienced

David Hall

Posted
Posted

Hi @Martyn Houghton

Just following up on this, I did have a working fix for your immediate issue, however there have been some other questions raised in the past week or so by our product specialists around when we should be resetting sub-statuses and and which statuses should trigger sub-status updates etc.  As a result I'll be having a discussion with @James Ainsworth about this area to make sure we are happy with the solution before we put it into the build, I will let you know as soon as we have the solution ready. 

Regards,

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
David Hall Experienced

David Hall

Posted
Posted

Hi @Martyn Houghton

Sorry its taken longer than anticipated, but the next full update (2.52) which should be out in the next few weeks,  I have made some changes to the Update Status BPM flowcode so that if when performing an update, if you choose not supply a sub-status in the node, it will clear the sub-status which should resolve the issue you were having with not being able to reset on resolve.  Additionally I have also updated the flowcode so that sub-status will be correctly updated when moving to New/Resolved statuses etc, so you will now be able to set a specific sub-status when moving to a resolved status etc.

Hopefully these updates will provide a solution to the couple of scenarios that you mentioned.

Regards,

Dave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Martyn Houghton Grand Master

Martyn Houghton

Posted
  • Author
Posted

@Victor, @David Hall

Following application of SM 1073 we are now getting errors on when changing from Open with a sub status to either New or Resolved where there is no sub status.

getThumbnailImage.php?activityid=urn:buzz:activity:5fe08c22-2044-4960-9322-45247cdb580c&accessToken=

I wondering if this could be related to this change?

Cheers

Martyn

Error extract from another occurrence.

2017-10-17 11:34:43Z [DEBUG]:[SYSTEM]:[7936] XMLMC Request Failed: FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_bpm/updateReqStatus): nodeName: API Call: Update Request Sub-status; nodeId: ee6f8f41-bd6f-4671-b5aa-35a5854a30f5; At 708/1: "Uncaught EspMethodCall:invoke: Operation[apps/com.hornbill.servicemanager/Requests:smUpdateSubstatus] FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_ops/smUpdateSubstatus): Input parameter validation error: Non-digit characters found in the element <substatusId>, the expected data type is 'integer'. The value was [New] at location '/methodCall/params/substatusId'"
    throw(e);
_fc_node_exec_ee6f8f41_bd6f_4671_b5aa_35a5854a30f5
2017-10-17 11:34:43Z [DEBUG]:[SYSTEM]:[7936] Output message schema validation failed in operation apps:updateReqStatus: The element <state> was not expected at location '/methodCallResult/state'
2017-10-17 11:34:43Z [ERROR]:[COMMS]:[7936] Operation[apps/com.hornbill.servicemanager/Requests/bpmOperation:updateReqStatus] FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_bpm/updateReqStatus): nodeName: API Call: Update Request Sub-status; nodeId: ee6f8f41-bd6f-4671-b5aa-35a5854a30f5; At 708/1: "Uncaught EspMethodCall:invoke: Operation[apps/com.hornbill.servicemanager/Requests:smUpdateSubstatus] FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_ops/smUpdateSubstatus): Input parameter validation error: Non-digit characters found in the element <substatusId>, the expected data type is 'integer'. The value was [New] at location '/methodCall/params/substatusId'"
    throw(e);
_fc_node_exec_ee6f8f41_bd6f_4671_b5aa_35a5854a30f5
2017-10-17 11:34:43Z [ERROR]:[COMMS]:[7936] Operation[apps/com.hornbill.servicemanager/Requests/bpmOperation:updateReqStatus] FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_bpm/updateReqStatus): nodeName: API Call: Update Request Sub-status; nodeId: ee6f8f41-bd6f-4671-b5aa-35a5854a30f5; At 708/1: "Uncaught EspMethodCall:invoke: Operation[apps/com.hornbill.servicemanager/Requests:smUpdateSubstatus] FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_ops/smUpdateSubstatus): Input parameter validation error: Non-digit characters found in the element <substatusId>, the expected data type is 'integer'. The value was [New] at location '/methodCall/params/substatusId'"
    throw(e);
_fc_node_exec_ee6f8f41_bd6f_4671_b5aa_35a5854a30f5
2017-10-17 11:34:43Z [DEBUG]:[GENERAL]:[7936] The BPM State is [{"id":"BPM20171017000039","application":"com.hornbill.servicemanager","name":"idox","currentStage":"4a2e5015-4bf4-bc96-b090-1a35b65c323b","currentNode":"flowcode-96651129-f109-4356-b8ef-f2d72b59f102","suspended":false,"cancelled":false,"failureMessage":"Xmlmc method invocation failed for BPM invocation node '4a2e5015-4bf4-bc96-b090-1a35b65c323b/flowcode-96651129-f109-4356-b8ef-f2d72b59f102': <?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\" ?>\r\n<methodCallResult status=\"fail\">\r\n\t<state>\r\n\t\t<code>0200</code>\r\n\t\t<service>apps</service>\r\n\t\t<operation>updateReqStatus</operation>\r\n\t\t<error>FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_bpm/updateReqStatus): nodeName: API Call: Update Request Sub-status; nodeId: ee6f8f41-bd6f-4671-b5aa-35a5854a30f5; At 708/1: &quot;Uncaught EspMethodCall:invoke: Operation[apps/com.hornbill.servicemanager/Requests:smUpdateSubstatus] FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_ops/smUpdateSubstatus): Input parameter validation error: Non-digit characters found in the element &lt;substatusId&gt;, the expected data type is &apos;integer&apos;. The value was [New] at location &apos;/methodCall/params/substatusId&apos;&quot;\n\tthrow(e);\n_fc_node_exec_ee6f8f41_bd6f_4671_b5aa_35a5854a30f5</error>\r\n\t</state>\r\n</methodCallResult>\r\n","stages":{"4a2e5015-4bf4-bc96-b090-1a35b65c323b":{"number":1,"displayName":"Resolution","status":"failed","items":{"4be938f6-40f3-3ba7-f102-473e8cc59c4c":{"displayName":"Investigation Started","required":true,"state":true,"position":0},"871c9a1b-39e5-3afe-3b6d-d3e310c567eb":{"displayName":"Investigation Complete","required":true,"state":false,"position":1}}},"585d6fbe-21a1-8429-7be9-b722f46e52bd":{"number":2,"displayName":"Resolved","status":"notStarted","items":{"40614cc3-3cd6-7c7d-e753-ce2875a71ec2":{"displayName":"Customer confirmed Resolution","required":true,"state":false,"position":0},"5bc734b5-ab4d-4137-f508-05c2856bf1b1":{"displayName":"Request Closed","required":true,"state":false,"position":2},"7b3c8060-66bc-3507-254c-449559dbdc1a":{"displayName":"Request Resolved","required":true,"state":false,"position":1}}},"s1":{"number":0,"displayName":"Response","status":"completed","items":{"2f742e5a-b28f-c68e-8dec-7408e3ac8822":{"displayName":"Request Confirmation","required":false,"state":true,"position":2},"6573ee34-1e92-f346-8d77-7811b5c34c93":{"displayName":"Request Acknowledgement","required":true,"state":true,"position":0},"cfd073bf-0e50-bc96-12d3-db88ebc7c49c":{"displayName":"Request Validation","required":false,"state":true,"position":1}}}},"TASKS":{"4a2e5015-4bf4-bc96-b090-1a35b65c323b":{"task-77df8e4c-0da2-4ec2-e71c-0bb2f211ac85":{"type":"task","threshold":100,"tasks":[{"assignee":"beverley.hatchman","weight":100,"grouping":"b6c566f1-5971-4c83-af80-d2b78f66bc71","assignmentOption":"oneMustApprove","request":{"result":{"@status":true,"params":{"taskId":"TSK20171017000327"}}},"response":{"result":{"@status":true,"params":{"status":"complete","title":"Pending - IDXIN00047490 -  Enquiry","details":"Investigate the issue IDXIN00047490 - Is there a limit on number of records in a DTF file that can be bulk  imported into gazetteer?","options":{"timeSpent":"true"},"priority":"normal","appointment":"false","reference":"bpmTask","createdOn":"2017-10-17 10:30:21Z","createdBy":"SYS_BPM_MANAGER","startDate":"2017-10-17 10:20:31Z","dueDate":"2017-12-15 13:30:19Z","timeSpent":"0","timeBillable":"false","progress":"100","assignedTo":"urn:sys:user:beverley.hatchman","owner":"idoxsd","outcomes":"OnHold,Reassign,Resolved,LogWithDev,Log3rdTier,Log3rdParty,Pending","outcomeInfo":[{"outcome":"OnHold","displayName":{"text":"On Hold -Awaiting Customer Response","language":"en-gb"},"buttonColor":"warning","requiresReason":"false"},{"outcome":"Reassign","displayName":{"text":"Reassign to 1st Tier","language":"en-GB"},"buttonColor":"default","requiresReason":"false"},{"outcome":"Resolved","displayName":{"text":"Incident [TRUNCATED]
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Victor Grand Master

Victor

Posted
Posted

@Martyn Houghton no, is not related to this build as far as I know. However, it is something we also noticed in beta and we have something ready to fix it (also, there are or were some subsequent issues with BP update nodes for sub-statuses). It should be deployed tomorrow morning (if it can wait until then)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Martyn Houghton Grand Master

Martyn Houghton

Posted
  • Author
Posted

@Victor

Is the issue only to do with going between a request with a sub status to a state such as New or Resolved without a sub status? Wondering whether I need to stop my analyst 's from completing the resolution stage on their requests as all the workflows are breaking.

Are you fairly confident it will be released tomorrow?

Cheers

Martyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Ehsan

Guest Ehsan

Posted
Posted

@Martyn Houghton "Request Details > Get Request Information" automated task in BPM returns properties of a Request via Variable Picker. We added a new property called "Substatus" and we found out that this collided with a namesake option for any other automated tasks. In this example, "Substatus" that is returned from "Request Details > Get Request Information" automated task collides with "Substatus" option of "Update Request > Status" automated task. Ofcourse this behaviour is incorrect. As a result of this, we updated the property that is returned by "Request Details > Get Request Information" automated task to rectify this but the long-term solution is a complex change to the BPM engine - which is being investigated. You'll see this error for existing Requests, such as the example that you're looking to but this will not be a problem for Requests that are raised AFTER you applied 1074.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...