nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

workflow with no active task

System

What does it mean if a task appears in the TeamSite todo list (looks like an externaltask that never called back) and the job appears in the output of iwgetwfobj but no corresponding active tasks shows in the output of iwgetwfobj:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<wfregistry>
<workflows>
<id v="22655"/>
<id v="22948"/>
</workflows>
<activeworkflows>
<id v="22655"/>
<id v="22948"/>
</activeworkflows>
<tasks>
<id v="22656"/>
...
<id v="22970"/>
</tasks>
<activetasks>
<id v="22671"/>
</activetasks>
</wfregistry>

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Adam Stoller

I'd say that the there is clearly a problem with job 22948 and that you should do an iwgetwfobj -r 22948 to investigate further...

--fish
Strolling Prime Minister of no fixed address

Migrateduser

That does not seem to have corrected the problem.

Adam Stoller

I didn't say it would correct the problem - I said that it would be the next step in investigating the problem

--fish
Strolling Prime Minister of no fixed address

Migrateduser

How does this help me correct the problem? What is the next step. It seems like a bug in TeamSite.

Migrateduser

Without knowing what the job information is telling you, it is hard to guess what he problem is. Perhaps the job is waiting for some action from a user, or did not get started properly, or the user canceled out of it....There is insufficient information in the post at this time to determine if it's a bug or not. You may wish to open a support case if you need specific assistance with this problem.

lissa

Migrateduser

It is an externaltask so it should not be waiting for user action.

I don't know what it means for a job to not get started properly - can you explain this?

If the job had been cancelled wouldn't that have either prevented the job from being created (therefore it would never have reached the externaltask), or if it was manually removed why would it still appear in the system and have tasks?

I am pretty sure it's a bug - can you check the bugs database for this condition? I can't post the XML on a public forum but I can send it to your email address if you would like.

We don't usually get anywhere when we file cases with support and it takes a lot of our support resources just to gather the information for them (diagnostics output, code, etc.).

Thanks,

-John

Migrateduser

If you think you've found a bug, that should really be routed through support. Are you sure the external task isn't waiting for something to happen? If the external task has not completed, then the job will be 'hung', right?

lissa

Migrateduser

My understanding is that an externaltask is active until it calls back or times out. In this case there are no active tasks in the job, but if this externaltask had called back or timed out (it has a relative timeout of ten minutes that should have kicked in days ago) it would have activated some other task so there should always be at least one active task.

james1

Have you analyzed the output from "iwgetwfobj -r [jobid]"? It should contain a history of everything that has happened to the job, including task (un)activations. It may provide some clues.

-- James

--
James H Koh
Interwoven Engineering

james1

> I am pretty sure it's a bug - can you check the bugs database
> for this condition? I can't post the XML on a public forum

A workflow with no active tasks is probably a bug, but not necessarily a bug in the workflow engine, it could be a bug in the workflow itself. A perfectly valid job specification could get itself into this state. Consider:


<usertask name='start' ...>
    <successors>
        <successorset name="Yes">
            <succ v='Yes'/>
        </successorset>
        <successorset name="No">
            <succ v='No'/>
        </successorset>
    </successors>
</usertask>
<usertask name='Yes' ...>
    <activation>
        <pred v='start'/>
    </activation>
    <successors>
        <successorset name="Done">
            <succ v='inactive'/>
        </successorset>
    </successors>
</usertask>
<usertask name='No' ...>
    <activation>
        <pred v='start'/>
    </activation>
    <successors>
        <successorset name="Done">
            <succ v='inactive'/>
        </successorset>
    </successors>
</usertask>
<usertask name='inactive' ...>
    <activation>
        <and>
            <pred v='Yes'/>
            <pred v='No'/>
        </and>
    </activation>
</usertask>

I believe that the above job spec would get stuck after either task "Yes" or task "No" transitions, because the activation criteria for task "inactive" will never be true. I haven't tested it, but I am guessing that the workflow engine would accept this job spec and instantiate this job. You might want to check your job for this kind of unachievable activation condition.

Hope this helps.
-- James

PS -- An even-less-likely-to-exist-in-real-life unachievable activation condition is "(task1 AND (NOT task1))".

--
James H Koh
Interwoven Engineering

Migrateduser

I don't think we have any cases like this and if it were an issue with the .wft we should get it more than with just one job.

Adam Stoller

Not necessarily - it's possible only the one job managed to go through the transitions necessary to cause the deadlock - however - as has been asked for several times - could you post the output from the iwgetwfobj -r jobid for the active job that has no active tasks - otherwise there is nothing for us to even begin grasping at

--fish
Strolling Prime Minister of no fixed address

Migrateduser

Actually as I said before I can't post the XML - it is a project for a security company and they don't like stuff like this on public sites. If someone can agree to look at it I can send it to an email address.

james1

> Actually as I said before I can't post the XML - it is a project
> for a security company and they don't like stuff like this on
> public sites. If someone can agree to look at it I can send it
> to an email address.

I can't imagine a security-conscious company wanting you to send it to *anyone* other than Interwoven Technical Support...? Which is where I would advise you to pursue resolution of your problem.

-- James

--
James H Koh
Interwoven Engineering

Migrateduser

Interwoven support, Interwoven staff on DevNet, either way I think the risk is pretty much the same. The people on DevNet are generally more helpful and faster to respond.

Migrateduser

I'm glad that you find DevNet responsive and helpful. That's why we have it, after all, to help our developers. Technical Support is the place where you can be assured that you will get closure on a specific problem. As a part of a paid support contract, Interwoven commits to resolution and response times. DevNet and its forums is not meant to replace this capability, merely supplement it.

When you are sure you have encountered a bug, or when you need to share detailed specifics with an Interwoven person for support, then Tech Support is the place to go. You may wish to reference a devnet thread in your communication with support.

Best Regards,

lissa