You are viewing limited content. For full access, please sign in.

Question

Question

Multi-line fields not being evaluated correctly with Gateways

asked on February 21, 2024 Show version history

I have a Forms process that kicks off a workflow. Depending on what the flow of the workflow is, it either writes a value to a multi-line variable in Forms or removes the value from the variable using %(DB.NULL). We are seeing that when it removes the variable value, the Gateway in the Forms process is not reading that the multi-line variable is empty and sending it down the incorrect path. This is happening in 2 different Forms processes.

This was working correctly in Forms 11 Update 4, but we upgraded to Forms 11 Update 5 last night and started seeing the issue.

0 0

Answer

SELECTED ANSWER
replied on April 1, 2024

Hi, Laserfiche has released the updated Forms 11 Update 5 hotfix with this bug fixed.

See more information from: List of Changes for Laserfiche Forms 11 Update 5 Hotfix 1014514 - Knowledge Base

0 0

Replies

replied on February 21, 2024

I could reproduce it on 11Update5 and actually it has same cause as the issue reported here: https://answers.laserfiche.com/questions/214422/Forms-11-Update-5-Feedback#215015

We are working on an individual hotfix for the issue above and it should fix your case as well. Sorry for the inconvenience.

2 0
replied on February 27, 2024

I have applied the fix that was supplied from our SP, but it does not appear to have fixed the issue with the multi-line field evaluation.

0 0
replied on February 27, 2024

See my post, instances were still suspending after retry, post hotfix.  Rui Deng provided a SQL Script to delete some extended instance data.  I ran that script and the instances continued after a retry.

Not sure if this would apply to your case or not.

1 0
replied on February 28, 2024

Did the issue persist on new instances? Or did you want to fix existing instances?

If the issue persists please open a support ticket.

0 0
replied on February 29, 2024

We just did a test with a new instance and it appears to have worked correctly. We were not aware that it would not fix the issue for existing instances. What would need to be done for existing?

0 0
replied on March 1, 2024

You can use the sql script in Craig's post as above. It would clear the current variable cache and populate the correct one.

0 0
replied on March 1, 2024

Looking at the SQL query from that post, this is not a viable option for us. We have over 12,000 Forms instances that are active at any given time.

0 0
replied on March 3, 2024

What is the current status of those affected instances? Are they suspended at the gateway or have they gone the wrong path?

If the instances are suspended at the gateway and could be retried, you can filter the main_instance_extended_data table with suspended main instance and clear those entries, then retry the instances.

If the instances had gone the wrong path and you would like them to turn back and restart at the gateway, we could try provide sql script to make those instances suspended at the gateways. And it would be better if you could open a support ticket and provide database to let us check it.

0 0
replied on February 21, 2024

It looks like setting the variable in the 'Set Business Process Variables" activity in the workflow to 'variable = ' works correctly.

0 0
replied on February 21, 2024

It's not exactly the same, but this post was talking about a task assignment not working when checking for a null value because it was sometimes an empty string instead.

0 0
replied on February 21, 2024

It's strange because this was working before we upgraded, so something has to have changed in Update 5.

1 0
replied on February 22, 2024

We've seen a similar issue. Some of our older processes have gateways with outflows that are "if blank" and "if not blank." Since applying Update 5, they've suspended with "Routing can not be split to any subsequent branch" when blank.  To correct the issue, we've been making the "is blank" outflow default. 

0 0
You are not allowed to follow up in this post.

Sign in to reply to this post.