BPMN Termination Event #8789
Assignees
Labels
area/bpmn-support
Marks an issue as related to supporting BPMN symbols
blocker/info
Marks an issue as blocked, awaiting more information from the author
blocker/stakeholder
Marks an issue as blocked, waiting for stakeholder input
kind/feature
Categorizes an issue or PR as a feature, i.e. new behavior
version:8.1.0
Marks an issue as being completely or in parts released in 8.1.0
Comments
andrejpetras
added
the
kind/feature
npepinpe
added
the
blocker/stakeholder
|
Hi, there's currently no short-term plans to implement this due to lack of resources, mostly. Our big focus in the engine right now is DMN, and we most likely won't implement new symbols until the first version of DMN is integrated. I'll bring it up to our product team however, which might influence planning. It would also help if you could elaborate a bit on the use cases/patterns which you cannot implement at the moment in Zeebe. |
npepinpe
added
the
blocker/info
felix-mueller
added
the
area/bpmn-support
Relevant parts from the BPMN 2.0 spec
|
zeebe-bors-camunda bot
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 23, 2022
10442: feat: support terminate end events r=saig0 a=saig0 ## Description Add support for BPMN terminate end events. See #8789 (comment) on how the BPMN element should work. The implementation doesn't follow the BPMN spec in one point: the flow scope that contains the terminate end event is not terminated but completed. Reasoning: - The state of the flow scope is a detail that doesn't influence the core behavior. In both cases, the process instance should continue, for example, by taking the outgoing sequence flow. The difference is not visible to process participants but only when monitoring the process instance, for example, in Operate. - It fits better with the existing implementation. It would be a bigger effort to continue the process instance (e.g. taking the outgoing sequence flow) when the flow scope is terminated. As a result, we would end up in more complex code. - It aligns with the behavior of Camunda Platform 7. Side note: I implemented the major parts during a [Live Hacking session](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1584245006). 🎥 ## Related issues closes #8789 Co-authored-by: Philipp Ossler <philipp.ossler@gmail.com>
zeebe-bors-camunda bot
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 23, 2022
10442: feat: support terminate end events r=saig0 a=saig0 ## Description Add support for BPMN terminate end events. See #8789 (comment) on how the BPMN element should work. The implementation doesn't follow the BPMN spec in one point: the flow scope that contains the terminate end event is not terminated but completed. Reasoning: - The state of the flow scope is a detail that doesn't influence the core behavior. In both cases, the process instance should continue, for example, by taking the outgoing sequence flow. The difference is not visible to process participants but only when monitoring the process instance, for example, in Operate. - It fits better with the existing implementation. It would be a bigger effort to continue the process instance (e.g. taking the outgoing sequence flow) when the flow scope is terminated. As a result, we would end up in more complex code. - It aligns with the behavior of Camunda Platform 7. Side note: I implemented the major parts during a [Live Hacking session](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1584245006). 🎥 ## Related issues closes #8789 Co-authored-by: Philipp Ossler <philipp.ossler@gmail.com>
zeebe-bors-camunda bot
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 26, 2022
10442: feat: support terminate end events r=saig0 a=saig0 ## Description Add support for BPMN terminate end events. See #8789 (comment) on how the BPMN element should work. The implementation doesn't follow the BPMN spec in one point: the flow scope that contains the terminate end event is not terminated but completed. Reasoning: - The state of the flow scope is a detail that doesn't influence the core behavior. In both cases, the process instance should continue, for example, by taking the outgoing sequence flow. The difference is not visible to process participants but only when monitoring the process instance, for example, in Operate. - It fits better with the existing implementation. It would be a bigger effort to continue the process instance (e.g. taking the outgoing sequence flow) when the flow scope is terminated. As a result, we would end up in more complex code. - It aligns with the behavior of Camunda Platform 7. Side note: I implemented the major parts during a [Live Hacking session](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1584245006). 🎥 ## Related issues closes #8789 Co-authored-by: Philipp Ossler <philipp.ossler@gmail.com>
zeebe-bors-camunda bot
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 26, 2022
10442: feat: support terminate end events r=saig0 a=saig0 ## Description Add support for BPMN terminate end events. See #8789 (comment) on how the BPMN element should work. The implementation doesn't follow the BPMN spec in one point: the flow scope that contains the terminate end event is not terminated but completed. Reasoning: - The state of the flow scope is a detail that doesn't influence the core behavior. In both cases, the process instance should continue, for example, by taking the outgoing sequence flow. The difference is not visible to process participants but only when monitoring the process instance, for example, in Operate. - It fits better with the existing implementation. It would be a bigger effort to continue the process instance (e.g. taking the outgoing sequence flow) when the flow scope is terminated. As a result, we would end up in more complex code. - It aligns with the behavior of Camunda Platform 7. Side note: I implemented the major parts during a [Live Hacking session](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1584245006). 🎥 ## Related issues closes #8789 Co-authored-by: Philipp Ossler <philipp.ossler@gmail.com>
zeebe-bors-camunda bot
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 26, 2022
10442: feat: support terminate end events r=saig0 a=saig0 ## Description Add support for BPMN terminate end events. See #8789 (comment) on how the BPMN element should work. The implementation doesn't follow the BPMN spec in one point: the flow scope that contains the terminate end event is not terminated but completed. Reasoning: - The state of the flow scope is a detail that doesn't influence the core behavior. In both cases, the process instance should continue, for example, by taking the outgoing sequence flow. The difference is not visible to process participants but only when monitoring the process instance, for example, in Operate. - It fits better with the existing implementation. It would be a bigger effort to continue the process instance (e.g. taking the outgoing sequence flow) when the flow scope is terminated. As a result, we would end up in more complex code. - It aligns with the behavior of Camunda Platform 7. Side note: I implemented the major parts during a [Live Hacking session](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1584245006). 🎥 ## Related issues closes #8789 Co-authored-by: Philipp Ossler <philipp.ossler@gmail.com>
zeebe-bors-camunda bot
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 26, 2022
10442: feat: support terminate end events r=saig0 a=saig0 ## Description Add support for BPMN terminate end events. See #8789 (comment) on how the BPMN element should work. The implementation doesn't follow the BPMN spec in one point: the flow scope that contains the terminate end event is not terminated but completed. Reasoning: - The state of the flow scope is a detail that doesn't influence the core behavior. In both cases, the process instance should continue, for example, by taking the outgoing sequence flow. The difference is not visible to process participants but only when monitoring the process instance, for example, in Operate. - It fits better with the existing implementation. It would be a bigger effort to continue the process instance (e.g. taking the outgoing sequence flow) when the flow scope is terminated. As a result, we would end up in more complex code. - It aligns with the behavior of Camunda Platform 7. Side note: I implemented the major parts during a [Live Hacking session](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1584245006). 🎥 ## Related issues closes #8789 Co-authored-by: Philipp Ossler <philipp.ossler@gmail.com>
zeebe-bors-camunda bot
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 26, 2022
10442: feat: support terminate end events r=saig0 a=saig0 ## Description Add support for BPMN terminate end events. See #8789 (comment) on how the BPMN element should work. The implementation doesn't follow the BPMN spec in one point: the flow scope that contains the terminate end event is not terminated but completed. Reasoning: - The state of the flow scope is a detail that doesn't influence the core behavior. In both cases, the process instance should continue, for example, by taking the outgoing sequence flow. The difference is not visible to process participants but only when monitoring the process instance, for example, in Operate. - It fits better with the existing implementation. It would be a bigger effort to continue the process instance (e.g. taking the outgoing sequence flow) when the flow scope is terminated. As a result, we would end up in more complex code. - It aligns with the behavior of Camunda Platform 7. Side note: I implemented the major parts during a [Live Hacking session](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1584245006). 🎥 ## Related issues closes #8789 Co-authored-by: Philipp Ossler <philipp.ossler@gmail.com>
zeebe-bors-camunda bot
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 26, 2022
10442: feat: support terminate end events r=saig0 a=saig0 ## Description Add support for BPMN terminate end events. See #8789 (comment) on how the BPMN element should work. The implementation doesn't follow the BPMN spec in one point: the flow scope that contains the terminate end event is not terminated but completed. Reasoning: - The state of the flow scope is a detail that doesn't influence the core behavior. In both cases, the process instance should continue, for example, by taking the outgoing sequence flow. The difference is not visible to process participants but only when monitoring the process instance, for example, in Operate. - It fits better with the existing implementation. It would be a bigger effort to continue the process instance (e.g. taking the outgoing sequence flow) when the flow scope is terminated. As a result, we would end up in more complex code. - It aligns with the behavior of Camunda Platform 7. Side note: I implemented the major parts during a [Live Hacking session](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1584245006). 🎥 ## Related issues closes #8789 10443: Do not take a backup if it already exists r=deepthidevaki a=deepthidevaki ## Description After restore, the log is truncated to the checkpoint position. So the checkpoint record is processed again and will trigger a new backup with the same Id of the backup it restored from. With this PR, `BackupService` handles this case gracefully. In addition, we also do not take a new backup if existing backup is failed or in progress. Alternatively, we can delete this backup and take a new one. But chances of it happening (i.e triggering a new backup when one already is in progress/failed) is very low. So we can keep this simple. ## Related issues closes #10430 Co-authored-by: Philipp Ossler <philipp.ossler@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Deepthi Devaki Akkoorath <deepthidevaki@gmail.com>
Zelldon
added
the
version:8.1.0
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently, the
Terminate EndEventis not supported by Zeebe, which block us to implements few BPMN patterns (or migrate) in the Zeebe.Describe the solution you'd like
Support the BPMN
Terminate EndEventin Zeebe and Zeebe Modeler.Describe alternatives you've considered
None
Additional context
None
I hope we can help somehow to push it forward.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: