Unit 8 of 10: Automating Business Processes Intro to Declarative Processing Exercise question
I am doing the exercise for the !st lesson in unit 8 of 10. I have two questions from this exercise:
1.) In part 2, I see that position should have a "label" property. I do not have this as a property of my Position object. Did I miss something?
2.) After part 2 is finished, we are supposed to check our results by starting a case. When I go through my case, I get stopped after the Decision stage and can't proceed any further (to the offer stage or the wrap up stage). Why is this the case? Is it because the SSN of 111-11-1111 makes it not the candidate that the system wants, therefore the process is over? Or did I miss something? I went back through a few past lessons and can't seem to find why I can't get to the next two stages.
Here is what I see:
Pegasystems Inc.
US
Could you post an image of the steps in the Decision stage (from the case designer)?
Also, post one of the flows in the Decision stage as well. If case won't advance past the Decision stage we need to look there to see what might be the cause.
eddie
Pegasystems Inc.
US
Ok, that looks right.
Check the stage configuration- what is setting for the stage behavior when all processes are complete?
eddie
Pegasystems Inc.
US
Ok - everything looks to be in order.
The two processes in that stage run at the same time so check the worklist; the background check might be pending
eddie
Pegasystems Inc.
US
I believe the issue is a product bug: when a stage starts by running a draft flow that starts with a decision shape, which calls a decision rule that has not been created, the system becomes "lost" like this. (It's a fairly narrow set of circumstances, but this course managed to invoke every single one of them.)
The easy way around it is to make the Assess Candidate step execute after the background check, at least until you implement the decision tree.
You can also skip ahead to the decision exercises and implement the Candidate Scoring decision tree. Once the decision rule exists, the problem will go away.
Cisco
US
Yes eddie explained to me that it was a bug. We worked around it by putting an assignment shape that does nothing in front of the decision shape. That seemed to help. Thanks so much for the insight!!