I am trying to use Windows Workflow and have a model that looks similar to the image in the link below:
After each of the Send Activities (GetSomthing, GetSomthingElse, GetSomeMoreStuff) the same custom activity is being called (LogSomthingBadHappened).
While it might not look so bad in this picture in my real model the custom activity is a SequenceActivty, has quite a few nodes, and when its repeated 3 times starts to make the workflow look very ugly.
I would like to do something like this:
Can the IfElse branches be merged like this?
Should I be using a State Machine work flow instead (haven't figured these out yet)?
Use a FaultHandler on the workflow and throw a specific exception type that the handler will catch. Not the most graceful, but I think it should work.
In sequential workflows all steps must appear in a specific order, and the execution path is regulated exclusively by control structures (IF, WHILE).Altering the execution path in the way you describe would be like using a GOTO statement in imperative code, which we know leads to unnecessary complexity.
If the activities contained in the SequenceActivity that you need to execute at different stages of your workflow are exacty the same, you could embed them in a custom activity. This way it is easier to manage them since they are contained in a single logical unit.In imperative code, this would be like refactoring out a portion of duplicated code into a method, which is then invoked multiple places.
Another alternative that might work is to put your LogSomthingBadHappened activity into a custom workflow and include that several time. Several things to watch out for: Subworkflow are executed asynchronously, if the LogSomthingBadHappened activity needs state information from the main workflow, copying it to the sub workflow might be hard.
I have not tried this, so it might not even work.
I think the answer by gbanfill points to the right direction.
To generalize, I define the problem as:
Is there a way to define a group of activities that will be executed in several places of a workflow?
Further requirements are:
The group of activities should be defined in XAML only ie no code.
Type of input to this group will, of course, be fixed but actual values should depend on call (like calling a function).
Maybe the way to do it is define sub-workflows and build a custom activity that would instantiate the sub-workflow and wait for it to complete before continuing.
This custom activity should have at least two parameters: the sub-workflow id and input parameters.
Related
In the Snakemake documentation, the includes directive can incorporate all of the rules of another workflow into the main workflow and apparently can show up in snakemake --dag -n | dot -Tsvg > dag.svg. Sub-workflows, on the other hand, can be executed prior to the main workflow should you develop rules which depend on their output.
My question is: how are these two really different? Right now, I am working on a workflow, and it seems like I can get by on just using includes and putting the name of the output in rule all of the main workflow. I could probably even place the output in the input of a main-workflow rule, making the includes workflow execute prior to that rule. Additionally, I can't visualize a DAG which includes the sub-workflow, for whatever reason. What do sub-workflows offer that the includes directive can't do?
The include doesn't "incorporate another workflow". It just adds the rules from another file, like if you add them with copy/paste (with a minor difference that include doesn't affect your target rule). The subworkflow has an isolated set of rules that work together to produce the final target file of this subworkflow. So it is well structured and isolated from both main workflow and other subworkflows.
Anyway, my personal experience shows that there are some bugs in Snakemake that make using subworkflows quite difficult. Including the file is pretty straightforward and easy.
I've never used subworkflows, but here's a case where it may be more convenient to use them rather than the include directives. (In theory, I think you don't need include and subworkflow as you could write everything in a massive Snakefile, the point is more about convenience.)
Imagine you are writing a workflow that depends on result files from a published work (or from a previous project of yours). The authors did not make public the files you need but they provide a snakemake workflow to produce them. Their snakemake workflow may be quite complex and the files you need may be just intermediate steps. So instead of making sense of the all workflow and parsing it into your own include directives, you use subworkflow to generate the required file(s). E.g.:
subworkflow jones_etal:
workdir:
"./jones_etal"
snakefile:
"./jones_etal/Snakefile"
rule all:
input:
'my_results.txt',
rule one:
input:
jones_etal('from_jones.txt'),
output:
'my_results.txt',
...
I often have a need for "custom playbooks" that do specific tasks, but still within one role, e.g. for a database backup task, I'd want it to be in roles/databases/backup.yml. A custom task like this would enjoy the same "magic" that main.yml enjoys (automatically reading role variables and so on).
The only workaround for this is relying on tags inside main.yml, but that's cumbersome - requires creating an "obstacle course" of tags just to ensure certain tasks are run, and specifying the tag on command-line (since a play cannot run a tag-filtered list of other plays).
I end up having to do everything manually and explicitly in a custom file.
Thinking further, the confusion is because I'm trying to work around two limitations of Ansible: (a) as mentioned, there's no way for a task to run a list of tagged tasks; (b) there's no such thing (yet) as "explicit" tags, ie tags that disable a task unless the tag is explicitly invoked. This means there's no simple way to run a particular subset of special/exceptional tasks within a playbook.
I was trying to work around this restriction by making a separate playbook. However, that would end up copying a bunch of logic from the main role playbook anyway.
The best approach for now is the workaround others have mentioned, which is to rely on variables as a workaround for "whitelisting" certain tasks. Then make a wrapper script which declares those variables and may also use skip-tags to eliminate unnecessary/slow tasks.
I'm doing some competitions on a website called topcoder.com where the objective is to solve algorithmic problems. I'm using Eclipse for this purpose, and I code in Java, it would be help me to have some predefined templates or macros that I can use for common coding tasks. For example I would like to write methods to be able to find the max value in and int[] array, or the longest sequence in an int[] array, and so on (there should be quite many of these). Note I can't write these methods as libraries because as part of the competition I need to submit everything in one file.
Therefore ideally, I would like to have some shortcut available to generate code both as a method and as a calling statement at once. Any ideas if this is possible?
Sure you can - I think that's a nifty way to auto-insert boilerplate or helper code. To the point of commenters, you probably want to group the code as a helper class, but the general idea sounds good to me:
You can see it listed in your available templates:
Then as you code your solution, you can Control+Space, type the first few characters of the name you gave your template, and you can preview it:
And then you can insert it. Be sure if you use a class structure to position it as an inner class:
Lastly - if you want to have a template inserts a call to method from a template, I think you would just use two templates. One like shown above (to print the helper code) and another that might look like this, which calls a util method and drops the cursor after it (or between the parentheses if you'd like, etc):
MyUtils.myUtilMethod1();${cursor}
I am in a process of implementing Page object Model, I have one query regarding it, please see below:
I have created page files which is having locators and methods for the page, I have spec file in which I am doing the assertions by calling these methods. My question is that for one page I have over 100 test cases, now should I create single assertion file for single tests or should I create 100 assertion file for 100 test.
Please let me know what is the best way to manage it.
Regards,
Manan
I think it makes the most sense to group tests into files by functionality. It's hard to run only some tests from a file, so split out any groups of tests you think you might want to run independently. Are some of them suitable for a quick smoke test suite? Maybe those should be in a separate file.
You shouldn't need to create a new file for neither every assertion nor test case. I am confused by your question because in my understanding, the assertion is part of the test case, and test+assertion are part of the same function (assertion being the end goal of the test).
Regarding the Page Object Model: The important part of the pattern is ensuring the separation of page/DOM detail from test flow (i.e. tests should possess no knowledge of the DOM, but instead rely on page objects to act on actual pages).
Not really critical question, but i'm curious
I am working on a form and sometimes the generated function name is /1BCDWB/SF00000473, and sometimes /1BCDWB/SF00000472. This goes back and forth.
Does anyone know what's the idea behind this? Cuz i'm quite sure it's not a bug (or i might be wrong on that).
It is not a bug. You always have to use SSF_FUNCTION_MODULE_NAME to determine the actual function module name and call it dynamically using CALL FUNCTION l_function_module.
Smartform FMs are tracked by internal numbering and thats saved in the table STXFADMI. You would always notice the different number in Development System if you have deleted any existing Form. Similarly, you would also notice the different number in your Quality system based on the sequence the forms are imported in QAS and the forms as well (as test forms are not migrated to QAS.
Similar behavior is also true for Adobe Form generated FMs.
You need to understand that every smartform has a different interface and hence the automatically generated function module needs to have different import parameters.
Due to this reason the 'SSF*' FMs generate a FM specific for your smartform. The name of the 'generated' FM changes when you migrate from one system to another. And that's the reason why you should use a variable while calling the 'generated' fm and not hardcode it.
The same goes with Adobe form as someone has rightly said in this thread.