New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Camunda modeler should mark processes as executable per default #555

Closed
berndruecker opened this Issue Mar 22, 2017 · 13 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
9 participants
@berndruecker
Member

berndruecker commented Mar 22, 2017

The most common mistake when starting is to not mark your processes as executable - which typically ends up in minutes or hours of researching the problem.

We should make all processes tickets with "executable=true" per default when creating them. If you do NOT want to have them exectuable you either don't care (because you are not developing for an engine) or you will easily recognize (as Camunda deploys the process).

This rather small change has a huge positive impact on the getting starting experience.

@meyerdan

This comment has been minimized.

Member

meyerdan commented Mar 22, 2017

@lizergsav

This comment has been minimized.

lizergsav commented Mar 22, 2017

I agree as well

@ThorbenLindhauer

This comment has been minimized.

Member

ThorbenLindhauer commented Mar 23, 2017

But this puts @NPDeehan out of work in the forum ;)

@falko

This comment has been minimized.

Member

falko commented Mar 23, 2017

+1

@NPDeehan

This comment has been minimized.

NPDeehan commented Mar 23, 2017

Even with the understanding that this makes my job on the forum obsolete... +1

@berndruecker

This comment has been minimized.

Member

berndruecker commented Mar 23, 2017

Maybe you can still answer questions around "startProcessInstanceByKey"

@nikku nikku added this to the Backlog milestone Mar 27, 2017

@nikku

This comment has been minimized.

Member

nikku commented Mar 28, 2017

Just to understand it a bit better: What does the engine currently log to the user if...

  • A process diagram with 3 process definitions is deployed, one executable
  • A process diagram with X process definitions is deployed, non executable

@philippfromme philippfromme self-assigned this Mar 28, 2017

@ThorbenLindhauer

This comment has been minimized.

Member

ThorbenLindhauer commented Mar 30, 2017

It logs Ignoring non-executable process with id '{}'. Set the attribute isExecutable="true" to deploy this process. for every non-executable process definition, regardless how many (non-)executable processes there are in the XML. If part of a process application deployment, it also logs a summary of all deployed definitions, which only includes those that are executable.

@nikku

This comment has been minimized.

Member

nikku commented Mar 30, 2017

Good. The only improvement I see is logging that in CAPSLOCK but I guess unless we fail the deployment without executable things in it any warning can easily be ignored.

@ThorbenLindhauer

This comment has been minimized.

Member

ThorbenLindhauer commented Mar 30, 2017

The above log message is logged on INFO, as it can be intended to have non-executable processes as part of the deployment. Perhaps we should log a WARNING if a bpmn file does contain no executable process. Then again, from my experience there are plenty of people who ignore logs entirely, so this ticket remains valid.

@berndruecker

This comment has been minimized.

Member

berndruecker commented Mar 30, 2017

I agree with Thorben, people are not really reading the log properly

@falko

This comment has been minimized.

Member

falko commented Apr 4, 2017

I agree that logging cannot solve this.

When people try an Open Source software and don't get something running within 5 to 10 minutes they quickly turn away from it. Let's not loose new users by setting up traps like this.

@nikku

This comment has been minimized.

Member

nikku commented Apr 4, 2017

Guys, there is no need to discuss this, because everyone agrees on it 😉.

@nikku nikku modified the milestones: M11 - Extensibility, Backlog Apr 4, 2017

@nikku nikku modified the milestones: M12, M11 - Extensibility Apr 24, 2017

@nikku nikku added the ready label May 9, 2017

@philippfromme philippfromme added in progress and removed ready labels Jun 12, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment