Directing Static Checkbox Group in BPA

[CalebH]

Hi if anyone could offer advice on my question that would be greatly appreciated.

So I am currently trying to automate a selection process in the Business Process. The flow all works well and doesn't display any errors but on the progressive capture side I am using a static checkbox group. If the user selects one of the boxes it directs them smoothly on the backend but if they select multiple options then there's no match and just ends. I was hoping someone would have experience using static checkbox as logically it  should make sense. I created an path for if each of the individual options were selected as well as a path for if two options were selected but it never goes down that flow. I used an AND statement in the Decision so if both criteria was selected it would go down this path but even that doesn't seem to fix it. Any help would be great.

Thanks

[Bob Dickinson]

Hi @CalebH

The first thing to keep in mind is that if you check multiple boxes in a static checkbox, Hornbill will deal with the result as a single string. So for example if you have:
* Option 1
* Option 2
* Option 3

And you mark Option 1 and Option 3, Hornbill will treat the output as something like:

['Option 1', 'Option 3']

So as you can imagine, if you have a lots of check boxes, the number of permutations that this string could end up as could run into thousands - so it's not feasible to write decision nodes for every possibility. 
Instead, you should use the "CONTAINS" option in your decision nodes. This will look for a particular selection anywhere in the string. 

Take  a look at the Business Process below based on the above 3 options:

 

The Custom Expression in the decision criteria looks like this:

 

 

As you can see - I'm not trying to match the entire string, but using the "Contains" to see if my option has been selected as part of one of the options. 
In my example, I have created a sequential flow that will then check if the next item (Option 2) has been selected and perform a necessary action. But you could also use something very similar to this in some parallel processing. 

I hope this gives you some assistance to overcome the specific issue you have. If you need any more help and still can't get this working, please could you post a few screenshots of your configuration and we can take a closer look. 

Kind Regards

Bob

[CalebH]

Thank you for this! Helped a lot