Thanks to all who responded. In the end, I've changed my approach slightly which effectively eliminates my problem. It's not that I was doing something complicated in the escalation, it just happened to be a 3-step process. I was originally tagging records to be processed so that I could immediately tag them as not having matched a configuration after processing. After further thought, I decided this wasn't necessary. Instead, I just process all matching records that haven't yet been processed (via a single set fields action in my escalation - filters do the rest), and then I have another escalation that tags old, unprocessed records as not matching a configuration. That's not necessarily ideal, but it will work well enough.
Thanks, Lyle -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grooms, Frederick W Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 12:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Filter Phasing and Escalations There is no Escalation naming convention. If all the Escalation does is a single action of setting a field on the form (as a flag to be processed) then it is a standard Phase 1 Set Fields action. All other work should be done by Filters (which do not care how they were triggered). A user going in with the User Tool or Mid-Tier and setting the same flag field will trigger the same Filters (This is how I test what my Escalations should do). If you are trying to make a complex Escalation with multiple actions I would switch it to a simple 1 action Escalation and do all the other work with Filters. You can then name the Filters to override the phase of the actions. Fred -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lyle Taylor Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 12:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Filter Phasing and Escalations Right, and that takes me back to my question: will that naming convention have the same effect on the actions in an escalation like it does for a filter? Thanks, Lyle -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grooms, Frederick W Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 7:59 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Filter Phasing and Escalations I have used it and it seems to work. The trick is since it is a Run Process action (Phase 3) you put it in its own filter with a naming convention of `! to force the action to run in Phase 1 Fred -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Guillaume Rheault Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 7:30 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Filter Phasing and Escalations Hi Lyle, FYI - I've yet to see the Run Process Application-Release-Pending work. Even with 7.5, it seems not to work....it has not worked for me in the past or now, the way I was expecting it to work.... -Guillaume -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Lyle Taylor Sent: Tue 05/05/09 7:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Filter Phasing and Escalations Hi Dave, Thanks for replying, but I'm afraid I don't understand where you're trying to take me here. I understand what the various workflow is and where it executes. The problem is that not all actions happen as they are encountered in the workflow due to phasing. This can occasionally cause problems, because something that you may have expected to happen sooner in the workflow processing may not have yet been completed, because it happens in another phase or has been placed later on the queue. This appears to be happening here. Most of the time, things work as expected - however, I've seen it where not all of the processing from step two of my escalation has occurred before step three gets executed, I _think_ due to filter phasing and how the queues for the various filters on the two forms get managed. Basically, the documentation makes it sound like filter phasing applies to escalations as well as filters. If that's the case, then I just need to know whether the `! naming convention also applies. If so, then I think the approach I'm taking will work, namely: 1) Tag all new records 2) Run Process: Application-Release-Pending 3) Process all tagged records 4) Run Process: Application-Release-Pending 5) Tag any remaining records as "No Configuration Matched" Thanks, Lyle -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Shellman, David Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 8:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Filter Phasing and Escalations Lyle, Filters are actions that occur on the server. They function basically the same if a record is changed by a person, an API call, or an escalation. This includes phase 1, 2 and 3 actions. You can check by turning on filter logging on the server. ------Original Message------ From: Lyle Taylor To: Arslist ReplyTo: Arslist Subject: Re: Filter Phasing and Escalations Sent: May 4, 2009 9:57 PM 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 -----Original Message----- 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. Dave ------------------------- [email protected] (Wireless) _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor:[email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" 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. _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor:[email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
