Workflow Issue Assistance

[SJEaton]

I need some help with a workflow that isn't routing as I expect.  I've configured a ProCap called 'TEST My HR Absence/Leave Transaction (with Switch)' that includes 2 x switch capture nodes based on 2 options selected in a request type field (Custom A).  These all work perfectly and then trigger the 'TEST My HR Absence/Leave Transaction Request Process (with Switch)' BPM .

The BPM has a decision early on based on Custom A so that it sends a different email dependant on what request type is entered for this custom field but for the no match route, all work fine except the 'Volunteering Leave' request type.  This is one of the switch capture options but the other no match, switch capture option works fine.  I therefore don't understand why the Volunteering Leave option routes the wrong way??  SR00099083 and SR00099091 are requests where it routed the wrong way and sent the wrong email.  (I know that Custom A is working fine for Volunteering Leave as its pulled into the Summary and email subject as it should, its just the no match decision that isn't routing it correctly)

Can someone please help me investigate and resolve this?

Thanks

Sam

[Martyn Houghton]

@SJEaton

Normally you would only use the switch capture to switch based on the Catalog ID selected in the Services Node. Might be useful to post a screenshot of the the PC along with the details of what setting you are using in the two switch nodes you mention as a starting point.

Cheers

Martyn

[SJEaton]

Yes it does switch based on Catalog ID.  Attached are some screenshots showing the ProCap, the request types and then the BPM and whats configured for the No option from the decision.  Basically anything other than these two request types should go through the no match route.  All others work except Volunteering Leave

Sam 

[Martyn Houghton]

@SJEaton

Just to break down the problem a bit, if you insert a custom form between the decision node and the switch capture for 'Volunteering Leave' to check that it appears. This is to just check if the issue is in the decision routing or the switch itself when undertaking the progressive capture.

Cheers

Martyn
 

[Steven Boardman]

@SJEaton hopefully Martyn's advise will help here, if not and this persists for you don't forget you can raise a request for support here: https://www.hornbill.com/support

[SJEaton]

14 hours ago, Martyn Houghton said:

if you insert a custom form between the decision node and the switch capture for 'Volunteering Leave' to check that it appears.

Hi @Martyn Houghton, sorry, what would I have in this custom form?

[Martyn Houghton]

@SJEaton

If you just put a temporary dummy single line text field and make sure it is set never to skip. Then you should get that prompt after selecting Volunteering on the previous form. This just proves the decision node in the PC is doing its job.

Cheers

Martyn

[SJEaton]

Hi @Martyn Houghton, but I know the decision node is doing its job because the PC goes on to the relevant forms in the Volunteering Leave PC that it switches too.  The issue lies when it hits the 2nd decision node in the BPM, which is based on CustomA

Sam

[Martyn Houghton]

@SJEaton

Ok, I see what you mean now. One problem I have come across before is that decision nodes have not liked some special characters in my case in the text value that it is matching too. In my case it was the '-' I had used, but I am wondering if the '/' and '&' in your selections which could be tripping it up as they are both could be determined to be logic operators.

I would therefore try removing them as a test. Also you could try changing the 'No Match' option with a custom expression for the other three options.

Cheers

Martyn

[SJEaton]

Thanks @Martyn Houghton

I'm liking your logic but the one's with '&' and '/' in are working fine.  'Volunteering Leave' is the one that isn't.  I've also tried changing the 'No Match' option with a custom expression to no avail.  I might just reconfigure it again just in case there's just a bug in it somewhere but other than that, this is definitely a head scratcher! 

Sam

 

[Guest Paul Alexander]

Hi @SJEaton

Thought I'd put my tuppence-worth in here!! 

Is it worth putting a 'Get Request Details' node in just after the 'Set Status' node- and just before the decision?  I see you've made a change to the request just before that (although I can't see why that would make a difference!) and making sure that the decision is looking at this 'get details' node for it's settings? 

Just a thought....

[Martyn Houghton]

@SJEaton

As well as Paul's suggestion, it might be worth inserting a timeline update node on both of the decision branches to confirm the route the BPM is taking.

Cheers

Martyn

 

[SJEaton]

Hi @Paul Alexander, the get request details node didnt make any difference.  I ended up deleting and reconfiguring it and it all seems ok now so must've been some kind of bug?!

Thanks both for your assistance.

Sam