It appears that there is no way to control the order of successors in WFM. So there is no way to guarantee that successors display in a given order. This does not give the best user experience when tasks with similar transitions have them in different display orders. It also does not allow one to display the transition links in a logical order.Yes, I know dragging your items around until the links are in the order you want might work for 2 or 3 links, but it does not work the more links you have. It also doesn't guarantee they will stay in that order the next time someone changes the model.Unless someone can tell me I'm on crack, I guess I will file a feature request.~Jeffps. Workflow Modeler (because devnet search is poor).
Feel free to file a feature request - but I believe the "answer" is that they [probably] appear in the order that they are created.You can verify that by finding a task that has the "wrong" ordering, delete the transition link that shows up as "first" and then re-create it - and see if it then shows up "last"
Hey Adam, that does appear to be the case (at least in the 4 or 5 quick tests I just performed). I thought I had tried that earlier, but I think I made a false assumption at the time that the system id FlowXXX number had something to do with order created and didn't pay attention to the tree. Thanks for that. And now that you mention it, I remember asking this question at GearUp in 2006 and getting the answer you just told me (I haven't done much with TeamSite since then and am just playing with WFM now for the first time (if it wasn't obvious)).Although this is a better workaround than I thought there was, it's still not great. If there were a way to reorder things in the tree into some logical order, I'd be ok with that (assuming that reordering items in the tree changed the successorset order). But I think some sort of gui to control the ordering of links would be more maintainable.~Jeff
Like I said - feel free to open a FR for it - I've used WFM only a couple of times so far - and while it's hands-down better than WFB (a crayon and a piece of a torn paper bag was better than WFB ;-) - I'm not sure if I like it better than just writing WFTs the old-fashioned way - but hey, I'm an "old dog" ;-)
Although, my list of things I dislike about WFM is growing. I know Interwoven was striving to create a more elegant solution, but I don't believe they have done so. It is quite cumbersome from what I've experienced so far. Although it probably doesn't help that I like to add an error resolution task to my workflows where every external task has both an error and timout link to it and it can transition back to any task in the workflow. I may need to remove this, as it makes the visual development aspect of WFM a nightmare and makes the visual model view to the user almost useless.~Jeff
