Details about this thread
  • State Verified Answer
  • +1 person also asked this people also asked this
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Subscribers 313 subscribers
  • Views 1360 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related content from around SugarClub

Workflows are not Terminating

Kirk Satoh

Hello, I have a couple of workflows that I have been using for years. Both workflows have terminating criteria which worked until we upgraded to 13.0. Since we have done the upgrade, the workflows continue processing (sending out emails) until the end of the workflow is reached even if terminating criteria is met first. Has anyone else experienced this? I tried adding additional criteria in case I missed something. I also removed and reentered the terminating criteria but neither one of these worked.

Parents
  • 0

    Hi ,

    All of our customer base is running on Sugar 13 and the ones using SugarBPM haven't had any issues like this of which I am aware.

    Can you share some more detail about the design of the BPM definitions not terminating as expected? A screenshot of each design canvas would be helpful along with explanations of what is happening versus what is expected to happen in the design.

    Chris

    Co-Founder | SugarCRM's 2024 Global Outfitters Partner of the Year

  • 0 in reply to Chris Raffle

    Hi Chris,

    When a quote is created or updated a 3 day wait event starts. Once the 3 days is up and email notification is sent unless the WF is terminated. If the WF is not terminated then the process starts over again for a 2nd and possibly a 3rd time. After the 3rd time the WF ends. In this example the WF made it to wait event #2 but should have terminated before the email was sent because one of the terminate criteria was met, the quote was placed on hold.

    I have attached screenshots from the process management showing the WF and the history. I also included a screenshot of the audit log showing when the hold was placed and finally my terminate criteria. Link to File

  • +1 in reply to Kirk Satoh

    Hi ,

    Thanks for sharing! You are using the 'Terminate Process' criteria for the entire process definition which is a feature I typically avoid using since it is not apparent to other users looking at the design that they may exist. I also do not find it intuitive to find those criteria, so I aim to have the entire process designed on the canvas to have better clarity on what logic goes into a process potentially ending. If you want to continue using 'Terminate Process' criteria, I recommend opening a support case with Sugar as it sounds like there is a defect based on all the evidence you shared. I agree that it should have ended when you expected.

    Something to consider is the more visual approach to your design which should operate as you expect. I would use the start event and event-based gateways to accomplish the same use case you are with the Terminate Process criteria:

    Your start event would rule out any quotes where Quote Team Approval or Quote Hold Status equals one of the restricted values. It then goes to evaluate the related Opportunity to ensure it is not in a closed won or lost status. Assuming those checks pass, it goes to the first event-based gateway where it routes based on whichever happens first:

    1. 3 days elapse
    2. The quote or related opportunity update to a restricted status (thus ending the process)

    This gives you a clear indicator as to which route it will follow and each subsequent event-based gateway can leverage that same logic to determine whether it should proceed with sending an email alert or ending the process.

    I hope this helps!

    Chris

    Co-Founder | SugarCRM's 2024 Global Outfitters Partner of the Year

  • 0 in reply to Chris Raffle

    Thanks  this is very helpful. I will redesign the WF but in the mean time I will open a ticket with Sugar because I have a few WF that I use the terminate process.

Reply Children