Which is best for a simple Deployment workflow with 2 decisions: WFM or .wft workflow?

AlwaysProblemsWithOT · July 29

Hi,

I have to make a fairly straightforward workflow (no reviews), to push files through the system with deployments to Dev, QA & Prod, and just 2 yes/no decisions to be made by the initiator: to approve the deployed file on the webserver (and go on), or reject it and have the file(s) rolled back.

We are debating whether to do this using Workflow Modeller, or to code a .wft. Which would be best?

My thinking:
1. Workflow Modeller: I've never used it before, so I'm wondering how easy it will be for a newbie to get this done, especially to do more unusal tasks such as a workarea-to-workarea copy and a rollback of files?
2. .wft workflow. Have done before, and I do Perl. I'm looking at <usertask>s and <externaltask>s and not much more, shouldn't be too hard. My main concern is probably that this is the 'old' method and therefore is it in danger of being rendered obsolete anytime soon?

Opinions welcome.

Cheers

PJ

nipper · July 31

Either way is easier. WFM is likely the better approach, it will get you familiar with it.

AlwaysProblemsWithOT · August 8

Finishing this one…

I decided to code a .wft for this - just needed 3x <externaltask>s for deploys, 2x <usertask>s to verify and 2 <updatetask>s to copy from 1 workarea to another. Just waiting to find out if I should add another <usertask> to terminate in the case of a failed deployment (or bad filelist), but other than that it is working fine and only took me a couple of days… I find it quite easy to change, if need be.

Had to figure things out as I went along, and there are just a few things I'm still not sure about but am interested to know, if anyone can tell me:1. When do I need the <activation><pred v=””></activation> element? I have some workflow tasks with <activation> and some without, so I am wondering when this is needed, given that I MUST have <successorset>s for every task anyhow? So the <activation>s seem unnecessary to me, although I think for 1 task I got an error when I didn’t have one in.

2. Similarly I am wondering about the ‘immediate=”t”’ argument; when would that not be needed?

Other than that, it's largely done and I think I would prefer to code .wft's than try to use WFM - just seems more flexible to code (& change) to meet particular needs.

Cheers

PJ

nipper · August 9

Defining the predecessor is not necessary, but a good practice. In a simple WF like yours, no big deal. But it helps with complex WFs to make certain the transitions are the way you want them.

Immediate=t you should use. Most of the time it is not needed, (i.e. external task to external task). But it is used when the external task is the first task and off of a user (i.e. review) task.

Also, you should set timeouts on the external tasks as well as failure transitions. If the external task fails or hangs (a very common problem), move to an admin task that you can end the job or restart the task. Makes things more complex but this is a very important best practice.

HTH

Andy

Which is best for a simple Deployment workflow with 2 decisions: WFM or .wft workflow?

Comments

Categories