I am trying to set the process variable but getting below error
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Process instance 10[SampleBusinessProcess] is disconnected.
at org.jbpm.process.instance.impl.ProcessInstanceImpl.getProcess(ProcessInstanceImpl.java:100)
at org.jbpm.workflow.instance.impl.WorkflowProcessInstanceImpl.setVariable(WorkflowProcessInstanceImpl.java:343)
Here is my code -
ProcessInstance processInstance = runtimeEngine.getKieSession().getProcessInstance(processInstanceId);
((WorkflowProcessInstanceImpl) processInstance).setVariable("myvariable", "myvalue");
Please help me with the best way to set the process variable.
Thanks.
I would recommend to use the jbpm-services for interacting with the engine, this offers an operation to set a variable: https://github.com/kiegroup/jbpm/blob/7.7.0.Final/jbpm-services/jbpm-services-api/src/main/java/org/jbpm/services/api/ProcessService.java#L223
Alternatively, if you make sure that your code is executed in the same transaction (by for example starting and committing the transaction yourself, around the code you currently have), you will be able to set the variable this way, as the process instance will only disconnect as soon as the transaction commits.
I can't comment on the previous answer so I'm posting this answer.
The quick and dirty way I found (inspired from previous answer) is:
public void setProcessInstanceVariables(long processInstanceId, Map<String, Object> variables) {
kieSession.execute(new SetProcessInstanceVariablesCommand(processInstanceId, variables));
}
Thanks a lot Kris Verlaenen!
Related
Been using EF Core with Razor pages for a few years now, but Blazor with EF Core has me questioning myself on tasks that used to be simple. I'm creating a golf app, and I'm attempting to update a particular person's round of golf.
Having stumbled in the beginning, I have learned that using dependency injection for the dbContext in Blazor causes several errors including the one in my subject line. Instead, I'm using DI to inject an IDbContextFactory and creating a new context in each method of my services.
The following code updates a golfer's round. When editing, the user may change the course, teebox, or any of the 18 scores. I'm able to update the round once, but if I go back into the same round to edit it a second time I get the "cannot be tracked" "already tracking" error.
I've scoured the internet for possible reasons, I've tried .AsNoTracking() on my initial GetRound(), I've tried detaching the entry after SaveChangesAsync(), I've tried using the ChangeTracker to check whether I need to attach to the Round object being updated. Nothing I've done allows me to update the same round twice without doing a reload in between the first and second update.
I'll provide whatever code necessary, but I'll start with the offending code:
public async Task<bool> UpdateRoundAsync(RoundModel Round)
{
var rtnVal = false;
try
{
using (var _context = _dbFactory.CreateDbContext())
{
_context.Rounds.Attach(Round).State = EntityState.Modified;
await _context.SaveChangesAsync();
_context.Entry(Round).State = EntityState.Detached;
}
rtnVal = true;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.Write(ex.Message);
throw;
}
return rtnVal;
}
When I run the above code, I see NOTHING in the change tracker as modified until I attach to the Round. Despite nothing being tracked, despite the dbContext being created new, then disposed, I still get an error that I'm already tracking the entity.
Help? What am I doing wrong?
Danny
UPDATE:
Edited the repro as requested, but it did not change the issue - still unable to update the Round twice without a reload in between.
Caveat: I'm not happy posting this as an answer, but it does solve the problem for now. I won't mark it as THE answer until I understand more about EFCore and Blazor together.
I did find that I was making a call to get course details without telling EF that I didn't want it to track the entity, however, that still didn't fix the problem.
In the end, I simply forced the page to reload programmatically: NavMgr.NavigateTo("[same page]", true) after my update call. It feels very un-Blazor-like to do it this way, but ultimately I'm still learning Blazor and not getting much feedback on this post. I'm going to forage ahead, and hope that clarity comes down the road.
For anyone that may run across this post, I ran into the same issue in a completely different project, and finally found something that made sense (here on S/O).
In this line of code:
_context.Rounds.Attach(Round).State = EntityState.Modified;
It should be:
_context.Entry(Round).State = EntityState.Modified;
I never knew that these two were different, and I never had an issue using the first example's syntax before starting to code with Blazor.
If you are unaware, like me, the first way of setting the state to modified updates the entity and all related entities - which is why I was getting the error when I tried to make additional changes to the round-related objects.
The second way of setting the state ONLY updates the entity itself and leaves the related entities in a State of Unchanged.
Thank you to #TwoFingerRightClick for his comment on the accepted answer on this post: Related post
I need to log trace events during boot so I configure an AutoLogger with all the required providers. But when my service/process starts I want to switch to real-time mode so that the file doesn't explode.
I'm using TraceEvent and I can't figure out how to do this move correctly and atomically.
The first thing I tried:
const int timeToWait = 5000;
using (var tes = new TraceEventSession("TEMPSESSIONNAME", #"c:\temp\TEMPSESSIONNAME.etl") { StopOnDispose = false })
{
tes.EnableProvider(ProviderExtensions.ProviderName<MicrosoftWindowsKernelProcess>());
Thread.Sleep(timeToWait);
}
using (var tes = new TraceEventSession("TEMPSESSIONNAME", TraceEventSessionOptions.Attach))
{
Thread.Sleep(timeToWait);
tes.SetFileName(null);
Thread.Sleep(timeToWait);
Console.WriteLine("Done");
}
Here I wanted to make that I can transfer the session to real-time mode. But instead, the file I got contained events from a 15s period instead of just 10s.
The same happens if I use new TraceEventSession("TEMPSESSIONNAME", #"c:\temp\TEMPSESSIONNAME.etl", TraceEventSessionOptions.Create) instead.
It seems that the following will cause the file to stop being written to:
using (var tes = new TraceEventSession("TEMPSESSIONNAME"))
{
tes.EnableProvider(ProviderExtensions.ProviderName<MicrosoftWindowsKernelProcess>());
Thread.Sleep(timeToWait);
}
But here I must reenable all the providers and according to the documentation "if the session already existed it is closed and reopened (thus orphans are cleaned up on next use)". I don't understand the last part about orphans. Obviously some events might occur in the time between closing, opening and subscribing on the events. Does this mean I will lose these events or will I get the later?
I also found the following in the documentation of the library:
In real time mode, events are buffered and there is at least a second or so delay (typically 3 sec) between the firing of the event and the reception by the session (to allow events to be delivered in efficient clumps of many events)
Does this make the above code alright (well, unless the improbable happens and for some reason my thread is delayed for more than a second between creating the real-time session and starting processing the events)?
I could close the session and create a new different one but then I think I'd miss some events. Or I could open a new session and then close the file-based one but then I might get duplicate events.
I couldn't find online any examples of moving from a file-based trace to a real-time trace.
I managed to contact the author of TraceEvent and this is the answer I got:
Re the exception of the 'auto-closing and restarting' feature, it is really questions about the OS (TraceEvent simply calls the underlying OS API). Just FYI, the deal about orphans is that it is EASY for your process to exit but leave a session going. This MAY be what you want, but often it is not, and so to make the common case 'just work' if you do Create (which is the default), it will close a session if it already existed (since you asked for a new one).
Experimentation of course is the touchstone of 'truth' but I would frankly expecting unusual combinations to just work is generally NOT true.
My recommendation is to keep it simple. You need to open a new session and close the original one. Yes, you will end up with duplicates, but you CAN filter them out (after all they are IDENTICAL timestamps).
The other possibility is use SetFileName in its intended way (from one file to another). This certainly solves your problem of file size growth, and often is a good way to deal with other scenarios (after all you can start up you processing and start deleting files even as new files are being generated).
Please, help to solve the problem with communication establishment between PC and 1211C (6ES7-211-1BD30-0XB0 Firmware: V 2.0.2). I feel that I've made a stupid mistake somewhere, but can't figure out where exactly it is.
So, I'm using function TRCV_С...
The configuration seems to be okay:
When i set the CONT=1, the connection establishes without any problems...
But, when i set EN_R=1, I'm getting "error 893A".
That's what I have in my diagnostic buffer: (DB9 - is a block where the received data is supposed to be written)
There is an explanation given for "893A" in the manuals: Parameter contains the number of a DB that is not loaded. In diag. buffer its also written that DB9 is not loaded. But in my case it is loaded! So what should I do in this case?
it seems that DB were created or edited manually due to which they are miss aligned with FB instances try removing and DB and FB instances and then add again instances of FBs with automatically created DBs and do a offline dowonload
All,
Is there a way to have a minimum time to keep a stream open before it closes? For some reason, my stream is closing prematurely which is causing errors elsewhere. I need to keep it open to make sure ALL of the data is gathered, and then it can run the other code.
Thanks,
James
In the case that someone falls upon this question later, I ended up creating nested if statements to pull it off.
Basically, there is one statement that checks if the end tag is not found (for my code, the END of the ENTIRE data that I should be receiving is </SessionData> - So, I did if([outputString rangeOfString:#"</SessionData>"].location == NSNotFound). I created a string called totalOutput that would have the outputString added onto the end of totalOutput until the </SessionData> is found.
If anyone ever needs help, just go ahead and comment on here and I can give more information.
[I am new to ADO.NET and the Entity Framework, so forgive me if this questions seems odd.]
In my WPF application a user can switch between different databases at run time. When they do this I want to be able to do a quick check that the database is still available. What I have easily available is the ObjectContext. The test I am preforming is getting the count on the total records of a very small table and if it returns results then it passed, if I get an exception then it fails. I don't like this test, it seemed the easiest to do with the ObjectContext.
I have tried setting the connection timeout it in the connection string and on the ObjectConntext and either seem to change anything for the first scenario, while the second one is already fast so it isn't noticeable if it changes anything.
Scenario One
If the connect was down when before first access it takes about 30 seconds before it gives me the exception that the underlying provider failed.
Scenario Two
If the database was up when I started the application and I access it, and then the connect drops while using the test is quick and returns almost instantly.
I want the first scenario described to be as quick as the second one.
Please let me know how best to resolve this, and if there is a better way to test the connectivity to a DB quickly please advise.
There really is no easy or quick way to resolve this. The ConnectionTimeout value is getting ignored with the Entity Framework. The solution I used is creating a method that checks if a context is valid by passing in the location you which to validate and then it getting the count from a known very small table. If this throws an exception the context is not valid otherwise it is. Here is some sample code showing this.
public bool IsContextValid(SomeDbLocation location)
{
bool isValid = false;
try
{
context = GetContext(location);
context.SomeSmallTable.Count();
isValid = true;
}
catch
{
isValid = false;
}
return isValid;
}
You may need to use context.Database.Connection.Open()