It's all about the answers!

Ask a question

No stateless (workflow-less) work items?


Ernest Crvich (19211817) | asked Jan 25 '12, 1:47 p.m.
While it's not mandatory to define a workflow for a work item type in the process config editor (i.e., you can leave it as "None"), at runtime trying to save a new work item of such a type results in an error that the work item either has no type or no workflow. Is there really no support for fully stateless work items? Or is there something tricky I have to set? Library article 129 is not clear on this, it just says you can define a state transition policy, not that you have to.

5 answers



permanent link
derry davis (23221916) | answered Jan 25 '12, 2:24 p.m.
While it's not mandatory to define a workflow for a work item type in the process config editor (i.e., you can leave it as "None"), at runtime trying to save a new work item of such a type results in an error that the work item either has no type or no workflow. Is there really no support for fully stateless work items? Or is there something tricky I have to set? Library article 129 is not clear on this, it just says you can define a state transition policy, not that you have to.


Hi crvich,
For 'stateless' records we built a simple 2 step workflow, opened and closed. I know it doesn't directly answer your question, just an idea for a work around.
Derry

permanent link
Geoffrey Clemm (30.0k23035) | answered Jan 28 '12, 5:08 p.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
That is correct ... you must associate a workflow with a work item type
in order to instantiate it. I've submitted work item 193559 to get this
clarified. Note: You can just create a simple workflow with a single
state, just to make the work item machinery happy.

Cheers,
Geoff

On 1/25/2012 1:53 PM, crvich wrote:
While it's not mandatory to define a workflow for a work item type in
the process config editor (i.e., you can leave it as
"None"), at runtime trying to save a new work item of such
a type results in an error that the work item either has no type or
no workflow. Is there really no support for fully stateless work
items? Or is there something tricky I have to set? Library article
129 is not clear on this, it just says you
can define a state transition policy,
not that you have to.

permanent link
Ernest Crvich (19211817) | answered Jan 30 '12, 6:06 p.m.
That is correct ... you must associate a workflow with a work item type in order to instantiate it. I've submitted work item 193559 to get this clarified. Note: You can just create a simple workflow with a single state, just to make the work item machinery happy.

The bare minimum for a "stateless" work item appears to be a workflow with two states plus two actions. Fortunately you can use that one workflow definition in many work items (of which we have about a dozen), but it sure would be nice to have a truly stateless work item someday (or at least fix the workflow type editor to require a workflow, since it delays the error until you actually try to use it in a project area).

permanent link
Ernest Crvich (19211817) | answered Jan 30 '12, 6:09 p.m.
(or at least fix the workflow type editor to require a workflow, since it delays the error until you actually try to use it in a project area).

Ah, sorry, I see that's exactly what you opened 193559 for. Thanks. 8^)

permanent link
Geoffrey Clemm (30.0k23035) | answered Jan 30 '12, 11:23 p.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
I didn't do much testing of my single-state, single-action workflow, but
I was able to create a work item with that workflow. What missing
functionality requires the addition of the second state and the second
action?

Cheers,
Geoff

On 1/30/2012 6:08 PM, crvich wrote:
The bare minimum for a "stateless" work item appears to be a
workflow with two states plus two actions.

Your answer


Register or to post your answer.