This should be easy, but it looks like it isn't.
I should start by saying that while this is a 2013 workflow, I am doing a 2010 workflow instead, as it has things I need in it.
I set an initiation form parameter called Syndication. which is a simple Yes / No drop down list. As you know, as soon as the parameter is set, the workflow automatically creates a variable for that value.
So I created a field in my workflow tasks list also called Syndication, which is also a Yes / No choice field. Then I went into the workflow and set up an update item in this list, chose the workflow task list, choose the Syndication field, and then choose to update with the workflow variable Syndication.
Here it is:
image here
The issue is that when a user selects yes everything works fine, when a user selects no, however, the workflow simply gives am error occurred, and doesn't tell me what the error is.
Anything would be great.
Related
I have a custom workflow in Alfresco 5.2 community. I have a parallel user task assigned to a activiti:collection="mywf_reviewersAssignees", and that variable is chosen at the beginning of the workflow. All works fine.
Now, under some circumstances, while the reviewers are completing their task, I need to add another user to that collection, so that another user task is created.
I have managed to handle the "when" correctly, but I do not know how to create/add a user task.
In other words I need to "reassign" the task, extending the default Alfresco behavior. Instead of changing the task owner I need to close the previous user task and create a new one to the new user.
Is this possibile?, thanks
EDIT
I've read this link (How to assign Workflow to the new user of the group?) which suggest to use the candidateUsers variable, but I need all of the users complete their work, I can't have them as candidate and let only one to do their work
A similar question is asked here Create User Multi Instance Task Programatically, but unfortunately none answered
I am trying to find a way in Azure DevOps of displaying a field on a User Story layout that is made up of a URL plus the value of another field on the same story.
We have an external support ticket system where all of our support calls are logged. When the story (or even Defect) is created, we have a field where a support reference is entered.
I want another field that combines a URL and the support reference so it creates a link to the support ticket.
Is this do-able?
Thanks,
Craig
This is achievable. You can Add a custom field to a work item type for an inherited process.
1,First you need to create a inherited process.
Go to Organization settings, From the Process page under Boards, open the … context menu of the process you'll use to create an inherited process, and then choose Create inherited process. Choose the same system process—Agile, Basic, Scrum, or CMMI—that was used to create the project that you want to customize.
2, Add a custom field to an existing work item type for the inherited process.
From the Process page of the selected inherited process, choose the work item type(User Story) you want to add the custom field to.
Select the work item type and click new field or ... to add a field under a group.
For example i add a new field Support Url under group Planning(click Options to define a default value for this field).
3, Apply the customized process to your project.
Click team projects of the process shown as below screenshot.
Open the … context menu for the process and choose the Change team projects… option.
Then you will have the custom field with default value for the work item type in your project.
For detailed steps please check Microsoft Document there.
Update:
Field value made up of a static part, plus another field
There is no direct way or any tool i can find to achieve this. However there is a complicate workaround to achieve this.
You can try creating a service server to to combine the field values and update the workitem field with workitem update rest api, and add a service hook to this service server.
You can refer to the service hook sever provided by Microsoft. Check reate a pull request status server with Node.js
I'm done building processes and intended to deploy into intalio server. it already success deployed,but the form that I've been develops using ajax form did not append to the workflow processes. anyone knows how to make that form appear on workflow processes?
both several task such as init process and create or complete already done. I've been assign role in workflow too. i create three types of form. submit form, validate form, and processing form. and the role was student, department, and academic.
the submit form already shows in monitoring workflow. and when I assign module to the specific user, in this case student, it already works. however, the rest of form (validate form and processing form) does not appear both in monitoring workflow and after assign to department and academic it doesnt not appear.
I think the process actually almost the same like the intalio tutorial. rite now, I make the user only two, student and department to make sure that the submit form and validate form run smoothly. but still, the validate form doesnt appear.
thanks
If you go into Administration>Monitoring>Processes. Can you see any of the processes in the Failed state? It sounds like the process is either failing or not getting to the point where that form would be triggered.
You can click on the number in that column and it takes you to a list of failed instances, or click on the number in the in progress column to get to instances still running. Click on the text in the Process column to get at the actual error. You can also see a diagram of the instance, this sometimes help to figure out where exactly it failed (clicking on the little gears in top left on the diagram colors the tasks that have been executed to green)
Hope this helps.
Cheers.
I have created a very simple workflow in Sitecore 7.2 (rev. 140228) which follows the out-of-box sample workflow exactly the same except that saving a "Draft" item doesn't also automatically push the item into the review state for a certain role. I have applied this workflow to the standard values item on a base template via the Default workflow field.
Whenever a user (non-admin) creates an item derived from the inherited base template, that new item's initial state as defined by the workflow is appropriately set to "Draft". I can then run that item through the workflow to reach the "Done" state. Basically, the workflow seems to work as intended!
However, when the user hits edit to create a new version of the item, the item's history then shows that user's item history as having "Changed from ? to Draft".
I cannot determine how to set the initial state of a given item's version to something that will not result in a version's state intially being shown as "?" in the item history.
As an example: I can (wrongly, I believe) set the State field on the Standard Values item for my base template (which many other items inherit from) to the "Draft" state but, when I check the Standard Values for the item templates which inherit from that base template, they don't inherit that value in the State field.
I can set the State field in the Standard Values for an item template itself and new versions of that item still show "Changed from ? to Draft" when new versions are created.
Can anyone explain how to get new versions of items to indicate in history that they "Changed from Done to Draft"? Is there something here I am missing entirely?
I've tried the suggestion from Jay below and the result is the same:
I modified the workflow as suggested
I start an item through the workflow, and then just run it through to "Done"
Go to edit the item (which creates a new version) and I'm still getting "?"
Just to add to this from the permissions standpoint, the two roles I'm testing this workflow with literally have full access to the workflow across the board.
I've noted that workflow state names show "?" when a role's access to that state is restricted in various ways, but I'm at a loss when it comes to why things aren't showing up properly with permissions as they currently are.
I think jRobbins has the size of it. While it doesn't really make much sense from the standpoint of user understanding, I can see why the workflow state is showing up the way it is. I can only hope that Sitecore will look to provide a way of addressing this in a more simplistic manner in the future!
By design, the new version of your Item is created in the Initial State of its Template's Workflow, not the state of it's the previous version. Therefore you will not achieve your desired "Changed from Done to Draft" entry in the Item's history.
I agree that "Changed from ? to Draft" is not an accurate entry but I think you may have to live with it unless you want to write some custom code on the function that creates a new item version.
Additionally;
"As an example: I can (wrongly, I believe) set the State field on the Standard Values item for my base template."
You are correct, setting the State field of the Standard Value of the template actually enters that Standard Value Item into workflow itself. You should only be setting "Default workflow".
See this link for more info - http://sdn.sitecore.net/upload/sitecore6/workflow_cookbook_a4.pdf
In Sitecore's default workflow, the __OnSave command is in Draft state and __OnSave's next state is Draft again. In this case, item's version information is "? to Draft" because "Draft to Draft" doesn't make a sense.
I created a new workflow and make __OnSave command to reside in Approved (Done) state. This __OnSave command's next state is "Draft". So, you will see the item's version information as "Done to Draft"
I made a spreadsheet that was intended to be shared with a small group of contributors, each one with a full edit permission over only one respective sheet. I built a main sheet that was supposed to compute the information passed by all the others collaborator's sheets and make an instant update in it.
When I, as the owner, make any changes on those particular sheets, the main one works like a charm. But when someone else changes the same thing, nothing happens.
Is this something that should already be working?
I assume you're using the onEdit simple event handler, which means that the script is running under the permission of who's making the edit. Therefore, if the user is not allowed to do something, the script will not be allowed either.
To fix this you should use the installable on edit trigger instead. Just rename your onEdit function to something else e.g. "installableOnEdit", so it's not triggered as a simple handler, then go to the menu "Resources > Current project's triggers" and set up a trigger to run your on-edit function on Spreadsheet edit events.
By doing this, the trigger will always run under your account, which should have the required access to modify the protected sheets.