Hi Lyle, Do you really need to override the phasing etc in the escalation itself? There is normally no need to do a lot of workflow in the escalation. It is common to use the escalation to merely trigger workflow in filters that do the actual work. You can do all the overriding of phases etc in the filters. The other benefit of putting the workflow in filters is that it runs all the time regardless of trigger and you don't need to replicate the same logic for both events (a manual update or an escalation triggered update)
Rod 2009/5/5 Lyle Taylor <[email protected]> > ** > > Let me clarify a bit. The documentation states that you can add the Run > Process action Application-Release-Pending between each of the actions to > get what I’m looking for and mentions that it can be used in escalations. > However, since it normally runs in phase 3, you have to use the special > filter naming convention to override filter phasing for it to be applied > properly between the push fields actions. I guess my question boils down to > this: do filter phases apply in escalations, and if they do, can you add `! > to the escalation name to override phasing just like you do with filters? > > > > Thanks, > > Lyle > > > > *From:* Lyle Taylor > *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2009 4:05 PM > *To:* '[email protected]' > *Subject:* Filter Phasing and Escalations > > > > Hi All, > > > > Can anyone tell me if filter phasing applies to escalations? I have a > three-step process involving two forms, and I need to guarantee that certain > actions happen in a specific order. I’m also trying to process records in > batches, so I have an escalation that does something like this: > > > > 1. Set the status of all records in Form A to “Process” > > 2. Set the field “Process Now” in Form B > > 3. Set the status of all records in Form A whose status is still > “Process” to “No Configuration Matched” > > > > Basically, Form A contains records to be processed, and new records can be > added to it at any time. Form B contains configurations that map back to > zero or more records in Form A. > > > > At intervals, I set the status of all new records in Form A to Process. > Then I trigger the processing of those records from Form B by setting a > field that triggers the processing workflow. As part of that, the status of > all records that got processed get set to a status that indicates they have > been processed. I then want to set the status of any remaining records that > were tagged for processing but that didn’t match any configurations in Form > B to “No Configuration Matched”. > > > > So, the question is, how can I guarantee that all records get processed in > action 1 before action 2 gets processed, and that all records affected by > processing related to action 2 (including affected records in Form A) get > processed before action 3 fires? > > > > Does that make sense? > > > > Thanks, > Lyle > > > > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) > and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all > copies of the original message. > _Platinum Sponsor: [email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers > Are"_ > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor:[email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
