Search Results

Search found 2938 results on 118 pages for 'async workflow'.

Page 2/118 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Async CTP Refresh for Visual Studio 2010 SP1 Released

    - by Reed
    The Visual Studio team today released an update to the Visual Studio Async CTP which allows it to be used with Visual Studio SP1.  This new CTP includes some very nice new additions over the previous CTP.  The main highlights of this release include: Compatibility with Visual Studio SP1 APIs for Windows Phone 7 Compatibility with non-English installations Compatibility with Visual Studio Express Edition More efficient Async methods due to a change in the API Numerous bug fixes New EULA which allows distribution in production environments Anybody using the Async CTP should consider upgrading to the new version immediately.  For details, visit the Visual Studio Asynchronous Programming page on MSDN.

    Read the article

  • Expose NativeActivity Variables to Workflow Designer

    - by sixlettervariables
    I've got a NativeActivity which contains an Activity body. The purpose of this activity is to expose a resource for the duration of the child activity as a Variable. The problem I've encountered is it appears the Variable cannot be used outside the activity. I'll use StreamReader as an example resource. ResourceActivity.cs: [Designer(typeof(ResourceActivityDesigner))] public sealed class ResourceActivity : NativeActivity { [RequiredArgument] public InArgument<string> Path { get; set; } [Browsable(false), EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never)] public Activity Body { get; set; } [Browsable(false), EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never)] public Variable<StreamReader> Resource { get; set; } public ResourceActivity() { this.Resource = new Variable<StreamReader> { Default = null, Name = "reader" }; } protected override void CacheMetadata(NativeActivityMetadata metadata) { if (this.Path != null) metadata.AddArgument(this.Path); if (this.Body != null) metadata.AddChild(this.Body); if (this.Resource != null) metadata.AddVariable(this.Resource); } protected override void Execute(NativeActivityContext context) { this.Resource.Set(context, new StreamReader(this.Path.Get(context))); context.ScheduleActivity(this.Body, new completionCallback(Done), new FaultCallback(Faulted)); } private void Done(NativeActivityContext context, ActivityInstance instance) { var reader = this.Reader.Get(context); if (reader != null) reader.Dispose(); } private void Faulted(NativeActivityFaultContext context, Exception ex, ActivityInstance instance) { var reader = this.Reader.Get(context); if (reader != null) reader.Dispose(); } } I cannot view "Resource" or "reader" in the Variables list in the Workflow Designer. Am I missing something in CacheMetadata?

    Read the article

  • How to (pre)start xamlx workflow service

    - by rwwilden
    Related to this question. I have a xamlx workflow service that loads part of its definition from a database when it runs (using ActivityXamlServices.Load). Reason for this is that I need versioning, see the related question. I'll use WCF routing to direct calls to the right service. The part that I load dynamically contains a Receive activity. However, this activity is 'invisible' as long as the workflow doesn't start because the part of the workflow I load from the database is only loaded when the workflow starts. So from the outside it appears as if there is no Receive activity in the workflow. Apart from not being able to generate a contract for the workflow service, I can't call the service either. My first attempt was to do a soap call with the right contract on the workflow service. However, the runtime doesn't automagically activate my workflow in that case. So the question is, how do I start a workflow that is hosted inside IIS? Regards, Ronald

    Read the article

  • Converting to async,await using async targeting package

    - by e4rthdog
    I have this: private void BtnCheckClick(object sender, EventArgs e) { var a = txtLot.Text; var b = cmbMcu.SelectedItem.ToString(); var c = cmbLocn.SelectedItem.ToString(); btnCheck.BackColor = Color.Red; var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Dal.GetLotAvailabilityF41021(a, b, c)); task.ContinueWith(t => { btnCheck.BackColor = Color.Transparent; lblDescriptionValue.Text = t.Result.Description; lblItemCodeValue.Text = t.Result.Code; lblQuantityValue.Text = t.Result.AvailableQuantity.ToString(); },TaskScheduler .FromCurrentSynchronizationContext() ); LotFocus(true); } and i followed J. Skeet's advice to move into async,await in my .NET 4.0 app. I converted into this: private async void BtnCheckClick(object sender, EventArgs e) { var a = txtLot.Text; var b = cmbMcu.SelectedItem.ToString(); var c = cmbLocn.SelectedItem.ToString(); btnCheck.BackColor = Color.Red; JDEItemLotAvailability itm = await Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Dal.GetLotAvailabilityF41021(a, b, c)); btnCheck.BackColor = Color.Transparent; lblDescriptionValue.Text = itm.Description; lblItemCodeValue.Text = itm.Code; lblQuantityValue.Text = itm.AvailableQuantity.ToString(); LotFocus(true); } It works fine. What confuses me is that i could do it without using Task but just the method of my Dal. But that means that i must have modified my Dal method, which is something i dont want? I would appreciate if someone would explain to me in "plain" words if what i did is optimal or not and why. Thanks P.s. My dal method public bool CheckLotExistF41021(string _lot, string _mcu, string _locn) { using (OleDbConnection con = new OleDbConnection(this.conString)) { OleDbCommand cmd = new OleDbCommand(); cmd.CommandText = "select lilotn from proddta.f41021 " + "where lilotn = ? and trim(limcu) = ? and lilocn= ?"; cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("@lotn", _lot); cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("@mcu", _mcu); cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("@locn", _locn); cmd.Connection = con; con.Open(); OleDbDataReader rdr = cmd.ExecuteReader(); bool _retval = rdr.HasRows; rdr.Close(); con.Close(); return _retval; } }

    Read the article

  • How can I use Windows Workflow for validation of a Silverlight application?

    - by Josh C.
    I want to use Windows Workflow to provide a validation service. The validation that will be provided may have multiple tiers with chaining and redirecting to other stages of validation. The application that will generate the data for validation is a Silverlight app. I imagine the validation will take longer than the blink of an eye, so I don't want to tie the user up. Instead, I would like the user to submit the current data for validation. If the validation happens quickly, the service will perform an asynchronous callback to the app. The viewmodel that made the call would receive the validation output and post into the view. If the validation takes a long time, the user can move forward in the Silverlight app, disregarding the potential output of the validation. The viewmodel that made the call would be gone. I expect there would be another viewmodel that would contain the current validation output in its model. The validation value would change causing the user to get a notification in smaller notifcation area. I can see how the current view's viewmodel would call the validation through the viewmodel that is containing the validation output, but I am concerned that the service call will timeout. Also, I think the user may have already changed the values from the original validation, invalidating the feedback. I am sure asynchronous validation is a problem solved many times over, I am looking to glean from your experience in solving this kind of problem. Is this the right approach to the problem, or is there a better way to approach this?

    Read the article

  • Windows Workflow Foundation: Recommendations how to design architecture

    - by Petr Felzmann
    We are running several the same ASP.NET applications (one per customer) based on our custom framework (libraries). Each application use its own database (Initial Catalog in the term of connection string). Now we would like to add workflow capability (of course 4.0 ;) to the applications. So the particular workflows will be the same for all the applications only some initial settings of each workflow can vary, e.g. in one application the e-mail will be send to the user X, but in other application to the user Y. I have several general questions how to design architecture: (1) Can be the workflow database shared for all the applications? (2) Where to host workflow engine - inside our custom windows NT service or inside IIS? What are the criteria to choose the right host? (3) How the workflow engine should communicate with applications? Should application call some WCF endpoint API configured in workflow host or vice verse - should each application provide WCF endpoint API and workflow engine will call it? How then the workflow engine will identify applications? Both cases requires probably some application identifier as a parameter in API calls? (4) We would like to also store some information to the application databases based on the workflow states. Is it possible? Thanks for suggestions!

    Read the article

  • Workflow Foundation 4 WorkflowServiceHost Message Correlation

    - by Lygpt
    I have 2 methods on a workflow service hosted in WorkflowServiceHost. The first method is called and starts the regular workflow sequence - talking to other web services, database work etc but on some occassions will pause and persist to db (as-in the delay activity) and wait for some human action to take place before continuing. I need my second method to be able to hook into this persisted workflow, change a local variable and then continuing processing. I have looked at message based correlation in workflow but can only seem to find examples where some kind of infinite while loop keeps the workflow instance active so that the second service method call can arrive whilst it's still running. Because my workflow instance will be delayed/persisted, the second service call doesn't seem to get anywhere (I can't have an infinite while loop keeping the workflow instance active). I hope this makes sense - cheers!

    Read the article

  • SharePoint Workflow: how to update the item without triggering the workflow again

    - by Philipp Schmid
    I have a SharePoint workflow which is running whenever the item changes. The workflow communicates with an external REST service. If the service returns a string, I want to update one of the field values with that string. Unfortunately, this update will trigger another instance of the workflow for this item once the current workflow terminates. I end up with an infinite loop! How I can prevent this from happening? SPListItem has Update(), UpdateOverwriteVersion(), and SystemUpdate() methods but none of them seem to prevent subsequent workflows from being triggered. I could inspect the last modified timestamp of the item and terminate the workflow if the last update happened within a certain timespan, but I am looking for a more robust solution.

    Read the article

  • Asynchrony in C# 5: Dataflow Async Logger Sample

    - by javarg
    Check out this (very simple) code examples for TPL Dataflow. Suppose you are developing an Async Logger to register application events to different sinks or log writers. The logger architecture would be as follow: Note how blocks can be composed to achieved desired behavior. The BufferBlock<T> is the pool of log entries to be process whereas linked ActionBlock<TInput> represent the log writers or sinks. The previous composition would allows only one ActionBlock to consume entries at a time. Implementation code would be something similar to (add reference to System.Threading.Tasks.Dataflow.dll in %User Documents%\Microsoft Visual Studio Async CTP\Documentation): TPL Dataflow Logger var bufferBlock = new BufferBlock<Tuple<LogLevel, string>>(); ActionBlock<Tuple<LogLevel, string>> infoLogger =     new ActionBlock<Tuple<LogLevel, string>>(         e => Console.WriteLine("Info: {0}", e.Item2)); ActionBlock<Tuple<LogLevel, string>> errorLogger =     new ActionBlock<Tuple<LogLevel, string>>(         e => Console.WriteLine("Error: {0}", e.Item2)); bufferBlock.LinkTo(infoLogger, e => (e.Item1 & LogLevel.Info) != LogLevel.None); bufferBlock.LinkTo(errorLogger, e => (e.Item1 & LogLevel.Error) != LogLevel.None); bufferBlock.Post(new Tuple<LogLevel, string>(LogLevel.Info, "info message")); bufferBlock.Post(new Tuple<LogLevel, string>(LogLevel.Error, "error message")); Note the filter applied to each link (in this case, the Logging Level selects the writer used). We can specify message filters using Predicate functions on each link. Now, the previous sample is useless for a Logger since Logging Level is not exclusive (thus, several writers could be used to process a single message). Let´s use a Broadcast<T> buffer instead of a BufferBlock<T>. Broadcast Logger var bufferBlock = new BroadcastBlock<Tuple<LogLevel, string>>(     e => new Tuple<LogLevel, string>(e.Item1, e.Item2)); ActionBlock<Tuple<LogLevel, string>> infoLogger =     new ActionBlock<Tuple<LogLevel, string>>(         e => Console.WriteLine("Info: {0}", e.Item2)); ActionBlock<Tuple<LogLevel, string>> errorLogger =     new ActionBlock<Tuple<LogLevel, string>>(         e => Console.WriteLine("Error: {0}", e.Item2)); ActionBlock<Tuple<LogLevel, string>> allLogger =     new ActionBlock<Tuple<LogLevel, string>>(     e => Console.WriteLine("All: {0}", e.Item2)); bufferBlock.LinkTo(infoLogger, e => (e.Item1 & LogLevel.Info) != LogLevel.None); bufferBlock.LinkTo(errorLogger, e => (e.Item1 & LogLevel.Error) != LogLevel.None); bufferBlock.LinkTo(allLogger, e => (e.Item1 & LogLevel.All) != LogLevel.None); bufferBlock.Post(new Tuple<LogLevel, string>(LogLevel.Info, "info message")); bufferBlock.Post(new Tuple<LogLevel, string>(LogLevel.Error, "error message")); As this block copies the message to all its outputs, we need to define the copy function in the block constructor. In this case we create a new Tuple, but you can always use the Identity function if passing the same reference to every output. Try both scenarios and compare the results.

    Read the article

  • C# 5 Async, Part 2: Asynchrony Today

    - by Reed
    The .NET Framework has always supported asynchronous operations.  However, different mechanisms for supporting exist throughout the framework.  While there are at least three separate asynchronous patterns used through the framework, only the latest is directly usable with the new Visual Studio Async CTP.  Before delving into details on the new features, I will talk about existing asynchronous code, and demonstrate how to adapt it for use with the new pattern. The first asynchronous pattern used in the .NET framework was the Asynchronous Programming Model (APM).  This pattern was based around callbacks.  A method is used to start the operation.  It typically is named as BeginSomeOperation.  This method is passed a callback defined as an AsyncCallback, and returns an object that implements IAsyncResult.  Later, the IAsyncResult is used in a call to a method named EndSomeOperation, which blocks until completion and returns the value normally directly returned from the synchronous version of the operation.  Often, the EndSomeOperation call would be called from the callback function passed, which allows you to write code that never blocks. While this pattern works perfectly to prevent blocking, it can make quite confusing code, and be difficult to implement.  For example, the sample code provided for FileStream’s BeginRead/EndRead methods is not simple to understand.  In addition, implementing your own asynchronous methods requires creating an entire class just to implement the IAsyncResult. Given the complexity of the APM, other options have been introduced in later versions of the framework.  The next major pattern introduced was the Event-based Asynchronous Pattern (EAP).  This provides a simpler pattern for asynchronous operations.  It works by providing a method typically named SomeOperationAsync, which signals its completion via an event typically named SomeOperationCompleted. The EAP provides a simpler model for asynchronous programming.  It is much easier to understand and use, and far simpler to implement.  Instead of requiring a custom class and callbacks, the standard event mechanism in C# is used directly.  For example, the WebClient class uses this extensively.  A method is used, such as DownloadDataAsync, and the results are returned via the DownloadDataCompleted event. While the EAP is far simpler to understand and use than the APM, it is still not ideal.  By separating your code into method calls and event handlers, the logic of your program gets more complex.  It also typically loses the ability to block until the result is received, which is often useful.  Blocking often requires writing the code to block by hand, which is error prone and adds complexity. As a result, .NET 4 introduced a third major pattern for asynchronous programming.  The Task<T> class introduced a new, simpler concept for asynchrony.  Task and Task<T> effectively represent an operation that will complete at some point in the future.  This is a perfect model for thinking about asynchronous code, and is the preferred model for all new code going forward.  Task and Task<T> provide all of the advantages of both the APM and the EAP models – you have the ability to block on results (via Task.Wait() or Task<T>.Result), and you can stay completely asynchronous via the use of Task Continuations.  In addition, the Task class provides a new model for task composition and error and cancelation handling.  This is a far superior option to the previous asynchronous patterns. The Visual Studio Async CTP extends the Task based asynchronous model, allowing it to be used in a much simpler manner.  However, it requires the use of Task and Task<T> for all operations.

    Read the article

  • Workflow workarounds: tracking individual column changes

    - by PeterBrunone
    This post is long overdue, but since the question keeps popping up on various SharePoint discussion lists, I figured I'd document the answer here (next time I can just post a link instead of typing the whole thing out again).In short, you cannot trigger a SharePoint workflow when a column changes; you can only use the ItemChanged event.  To get more granular, then, you need to add some extra bits.Let's say you have a list called "5K Races" with a column called StartTime, and you want to execute some actions when the StartTime value changes.  Simply perform the following steps:1)  Create an additional column (same datatype) called OldStartTime.2)  When the workflow starts, compare StartTime to OldStartTime.    a) If they are equal, then do nothing (end).    b) If they are NOT equal, proceed with your workflow.3)  If 2b, then set OldStartTime to the value of StartTime.By performing step 3, you ensure that by the end of the workflow, OldStartTime will be equal to StartTime -- this is important because the workflow will continue to run every time a particular item is changed, but by taking away the criterion that would cause the workflow to run the second time, you have avoided an endless loop situation. 

    Read the article

  • C# 5 Async, Part 3: Preparing Existing code For Await

    - by Reed
    While the Visual Studio Async CTP provides a fantastic model for asynchronous programming, it requires code to be implemented in terms of Task and Task<T>.  The CTP adds support for Task-based asynchrony to the .NET Framework methods, and promises to have these implemented directly in the framework in the future.  However, existing code outside the framework will need to be converted to using the Task class prior to being usable via the CTP. Wrapping existing asynchronous code into a Task or Task<T> is, thankfully, fairly straightforward.  There are two main approaches to this. Code written using the Asynchronous Programming Model (APM) is very easy to convert to using Task<T>.  The TaskFactory class provides the tools to directly convert APM code into a method returning a Task<T>.  This is done via the FromAsync method.  This method takes the BeginOperation and EndOperation methods, as well as any parameters and state objects as arguments, and returns a Task<T> directly. For example, we could easily convert the WebRequest BeginGetResponse and EndGetResponse methods into a method which returns a Task<WebResponse> via: Task<WebResponse> task = Task.Factory .FromAsync<WebResponse>( request.BeginGetResponse, request.EndGetResponse, null); .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } Event-based Asynchronous Pattern (EAP) code can also be wrapped into a Task<T>, though this requires a bit more effort than the one line of code above.  This is handled via the TaskCompletionSource<T> class.  MSDN provides a detailed example of using this to wrap an EAP operation into a method returning Task<T>.  It demonstrates handling cancellation and exception handling as well as the basic operation of the asynchronous method itself. The basic form of this operation is typically: Task<YourResult> GetResultAsync() { var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<YourResult>(); // Handle the event, and setup the task results... this.GetResultCompleted += (o,e) => { if (e.Error != null) tcs.TrySetException(e.Error); else if (e.Cancelled) tcs.TrySetCanceled(); else tcs.TrySetResult(e.Result); }; // Call the asynchronous method this.GetResult(); // Return the task from the TaskCompletionSource return tcs.Task; } We can easily use these methods to wrap our own code into a method that returns a Task<T>.  Existing libraries which cannot be edited can be extended via Extension methods.  The CTP uses this technique to add appropriate methods throughout the framework. The suggested naming for these methods is to define these methods as “Task<YourResult> YourClass.YourOperationAsync(…)”.  However, this naming often conflicts with the default naming of the EAP.  If this is the case, the CTP has standardized on using “Task<YourResult> YourClass.YourOperationTaskAsync(…)”. Once we’ve wrapped all of our existing code into operations that return Task<T>, we can begin investigating how the Async CTP can be used with our own code.

    Read the article

  • Memory leak when using Workflow 4.0 SqlWorkflowInstanceStore and PersistableIdleAction.Unload

    - by Rohland
    Hi, This particular problem is driving me nuts. I wonder if anyone has experienced a similar problem. If I load up a workflow then unload it and perform a memory snapshot then the result is predictable - my workflow is no longer in memory. However, if I load up a workflow and set the PersistableIdle action to PersistableIdleAction.Unload and let the workflow idle the workflow remains in memory even though the Unload action fires. I used ANTS Memory Profiler to debug this issue. This is the object retention graph outputted showing that an internal object is hanging onto my workflow instance. Can anyone else verify this problem? My code amounts to the following: Create SqlWorkflowInstanceStore and setup lock owner handle -- At this point I take a memory snapshot Create an instance of Workflow1 Set the PersistableIdle action Apply the instancestore to Workflow1 Setup action event handlers for Idle, Unload, UnhandledException etc. Persist the workflow instance Run the workflow instance Wait for instance to idle (caused by Delay activity) Ensure the Unload action is fired -- At this point I take a second memory snapshot From the above image, it is clear that the only object referencing Workflow1 is some internal event handlers result which I have no ability to dispose of. Any clues?

    Read the article

  • Workflow foundation 4.0 message correlation and error reporting

    - by Lygpt
    I have a workflow service that runs and performs a number of different operations (such as web service calls). If one of these operations fails I call an error reporting web service to notify a seperate system that one of my workflow operations has failed. As the error could be something like the web service being down, I loop and retry this operation until it works. There can be times though when the data I'm passing to this web service is faulty and it needs changing. So I need to be able to hook into this running (but delayed) workflow and change local workflow variables and then re-run the operation. I've looked at message correlation in workflow 4.0 to achieve this but because the delay activity is active in my running workflow instance, any second service call doesn't do anything (it's like the delay activity is blocking any other requests). I've tried setting 'CanCreateInstance' to both true and false but it doesn't help. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Windows Workflow Foundation: Multiple applications

    - by Petr Felzmann
    We are running several ASP.NET applications (one per customer) based on our custom framework (which just extend ASP.NET). Each web application use its own database (Initial Catalog in the term of connection string). Now we would like to add workflow capability to the applications (to our framework respectively). The particular workflows will be the same for all the applications only some initial settings of each workflow can vary, e.g. in one application the e-mail will be send to the user X, but in other application to the user Y. The question is if we can install one workflow engine (with one database for persistence) and share this for all workflows in all web applications. If so, how then workflow engine get knows the particular workflow belongs to which web application? Should we store some application identifier somewhere in workflow? Thanks for suggestions!

    Read the article

  • What to Return with Async CRUD methods

    - by RualStorge
    While there is a similar question focused on Java, I've been in debates with utilizing Task objects. What's the best way to handle returns on CRUD methods (and similar)? Common returns we've seen over the years are: Void (no return unless there is an exception) Boolean (True on Success, False on Failure, exception on unhandled failure) Int or GUID (Return the newly created objects Id, 0 or null on failure, exception on unhandled failure) The updated Object (exception on failure) Result Object (Object that houses the manipulated object's ID, Boolean or status field to with success or failure indicated, Exception information if there was one, etc) The concern comes into play as we've started moving over to utilizing C# 5's Async functionality, and this brought the question up of how we should handle CRUD returns large-scale. In our systems we have a little of everything in regards to what we return, we want to make these returns standardized... Now the question is what is the recommended standard? Is there even a recommended standard yet? (I realize we need to decide our standard, but typically we do so by looking at best practices, see if it makes sense for us and go from there, but here we're not finding much to work with)

    Read the article

  • What to Return with Async CRUD methods C#

    - by RualStorge
    While there is a similar question focused on Java, I've been in debates with utilizing Task objects. What's the best way to handle returns on CRUD methods (and similar)? Common returns we've seen over the years are: Void (no return unless there is an exception) Boolean (True on Success, False on Failure, exception on unhandled failure) Int or GUID (Return the newly created objects Id, 0 or null on failure, exception on unhandled failure) The updated Object (exception on failure) Result Object (Object that houses the manipulated object's ID, Boolean or status field to with success or failure indicated, Exception information if there was one, etc) The concern comes into play as we've started moving over to utilizing C# 5's Async functionality, and this brought the question up of how we should handle CRUD returns large-scale. In our systems we have a little of everything in regards to what we return, we want to make these returns standardized... Now the question is what is the recommended standard? Is there even a recommended standard yet? (I realize we need to decide our standard, but typically we do so by looking at best practices, see if it makes sense for us and go from there, but here we're not finding much to work with)

    Read the article

  • WF4 workflow versioning using WorkflowServiceHost

    - by rwwilden
    Related to this question. I understand how to implement versioning of workflows using WorkflowApplication. If you keep the original XAML definition for older versions of your workflow around, you can load them using the right WorkflowApplication constructor. How could you ensure that WorkflowServiceHost uses the correct workflow definition when you want to host your workflows in IIS? There is a WorkflowServiceHost constructor that you can use to load a workflow definition, but when you are hosting inside IIS through a XAMLX file, you do not call WorkflowServiceHost yourself, this is handled somehow by IIS. So how do I ensure that the correct workflow definition is loaded for the right version of my workflow?

    Read the article

  • WF4 - Display workflow design in asp.net and highlight an activity

    - by jikan_the_useless
    i need to display current status of a document approval workflow task in asp.net web page with a specific activity highlighted. i have seen the visual workflow tracker example (in wf&wcf samples) but i have two issues, 1-i have to render workflow in asp.net not in a wpf app. 2-i don't need to display current status with workflow running, all activities that need to highlighted are the one that require user input. e.g. "waiting for approval from department head" etc. if i could just convert the workflow xaml to jpg after highlighting a specific activity by activity id that created a bookmark and waiting to resume the bookmark it would do the work.

    Read the article

  • This Task Is Currently Locked by a Running Workflow and Cannot Be Edited

    - by Jayant Sharma
    Problem: In SharePoint Workflow, "This task is currently locked by a running workflow and cannot be edited" is the common exception, that we face. Solution: Generally this exception occurs 1.  when the number of items in the Task List gets highThis exception says that the workflow is not able to deliver the all the events at a given time and so the tasks get locked.  Out Of Box, the default event delivery throttle value is 15.  Event delivery throttle value Specifies the number of workflows that can be processed at the same time across all front-end Web serverslook at following link.(http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vincent_runge/archive/2008/09/16/about-the-workflow-eventdelivery-throttle-parameter.aspx)If the value returned by query is superior to the throttle (15 by default), any new workflow event will not be processed immediately. so we need to change it by stsadm command like...stsadm -o setproperty -pn workflow-eventdelivery-throttle -pv "20"(http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc287939(office.12).aspx) 2. When we modify a Workflow Task from Custom TaskEdit Page.   when we try to modify the workflow task from outside workflow default Page, like custom workflow taskedit page. then is exception occurs.suppose we have custom task edit page with dropdown  and values are submitted/ Progress/ completed etc and we want to complete task from here. it will throw exception on SPWorkflowTask.AlterTask method, which changes the TaskStatus.When I debug, to find the root cause I actully found that the workflow is not locked. The InternalState flag of the workflow does not include the Locked flag bits(http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd928318(v=office.12).aspx) When I found this link http://geek.hubkey.com/2007/09/locked-workflow.htmlIt is exactly what I wanted. It says that "when the WorkflowVersion of the task list item is not equal to 1" then the error occurs. The solution that is propsed here works fantastically if ((int)task[SPBuiltInFieldId.WorkflowVersion] != 1){    SPList parentList = task.ParentList.ParentWeb.Lists[new Guid(task[SPBuiltInFieldId.WorkflowListId].ToString())];    SPListItem parentItem = parentList.Items.GetItemById((int)task[SPBuiltInFieldId.WorkflowItemId]);    SPWorkflow workflow = parentItem.Workflows[new Guid(task[SPBuiltInFieldId.WorkflowInstanceID].ToString())];    if (!workflow.IsLocked)    {       task[SPBuiltInFieldId.WorkflowVersion] = 1;       task.SystemUpdate();      break;    }} It will reset the workflow version to 1 again.Conclusion: This Exception is completely confusing. So, we need to find at first whether our workflow is really locked or not. If it is really locked then use 1st method. If not, then check the workflow version and set it to 1 again.Jayant Sharma

    Read the article

  • Updating Workflow Task without Correlation Token

    - by Khurram Aziz
    I have inhertied a sequential sharepoint workflow which deals with multiple tasks for different people; multi step approval based on certain condition..For each approval new task is created and monitored...For some reason; we have decided to use single task for the whole workflow and the single task will get assigned to required person at different stages...this will help us reduce the cluter in the task list For refactoring it; I am trying to create "CreateOrUpdateTaskAndWaitForCompletition" activity...so that I can use this component multiple times as per given workflow. Create/Wait branch of my activity works fine; as I have the correlation token within the activity. But when I try two instances of this activity; task is created in first activity and it needs to be updated in second instance where I dont have the correlation token. In the second instance; (Update/Wait branch) I have tried updating the task through code activity but its not working and I am getting "This task is currently locked by a running workflow and cannot be edited" exception! Can I use UpdateTask activity without correlation token? Can I programmatically update the workflow task? Can I programmatically unlock the workflow task?

    Read the article

  • Workflow UI Integration - is WF a good approach?

    - by AJ
    Somewhat similar to this question, except we haven't decided that we're going with WF yet. I'm working on designing a system that requires a series of decisions and activities on a "work object," so I naturally began to consider workflow, specifically WF. What I'm wondering is if WF is a good solution for a situation like the following (oversimplified for this question) case (please forgive bad ascii art): __________________ | Gather some info | | (web page) | |__________________| | | / \ / \ / \ / \ / cond \ \ 1 / \ / \ / \ / \ / | | ______________|_______________ | | | | | ______|______ ______|________ / do some / | Get more info | / process / | (web page) | /____________/ |_______________| | | / \ / \ / \ / cond. \ \ 2 / \ / \ / \ / | | |__________________ | | | | _____|_____ _____|_____ / some / / another / / process / / process / /__________/ /__________/ The part I'm struggling with is the get more info (web page) step and what happens subsequent, which would mean a halt in the execution of the workflow runtime. I'm aware that this is possible, but I'm not sure that WF is the best approach for this type of code, as the user interaction may be required at many different points through the entire workflow, and the workflow will drive what data entry screens are needed. We are using a WinForms/ASP.NET web forms package for UI, which is homegrown and difficult to push deployments on, so something like SharePoint integration is out of the question. Our back-end is DB2, and the workflow code (whether it's in WF or otherwise) will need to interact with that as well. I guess the bottom line is, should we look into using WF for this, or would we be better served just coding it ourselves? Can WF easily integrate data entry screens to capture information that can be used further on in the workflow?

    Read the article

  • Trigger ad-hoc activity within a workflow

    - by Chris Taylor
    I am looking to use WF 4 to replace an existing workflow solution we have. One feature that is currently used in the existing workflow engine is the ability to cancel a current activity and loopback to a FlowSwitch type activity. So given the following crude workflow where we start at 'O' and base in the input data the workflow follows the path to 'A2' which is currently blocking on s bookmark waiting for input. ---------A1--\ | \ /\ \ O------- ---->--(A2)-------| ^ \/ / | | | / | | ---------A3--/ | | | |----------------------| However in the meantime some out of band data comes in that means we should cancel 'A2' and return to the FlowSwitch to re-evaluate based on the new data. The question is what is the best way to handle the out of band data that arrived? My initial guess is to have a Parallel activity with one branch waiting for out of band data and the other branch containing the workflow sequence described above. If data came in on the brach waiting for the out of band data, how would I cancel the current activity in the workflow and force it to return to the FlowSwitch. Or of course is there a better way to handle this. I have not actually done any work with the WF4 stuff for WF3 for that matter so I might be missing something obvious here.

    Read the article

  • Understanding C# async / await (2) Awaitable / Awaiter Pattern

    - by Dixin
    What is awaitable Part 1 shows that any Task is awaitable. Actually there are other awaitable types. Here is an example: Task<int> task = new Task<int>(() => 0); int result = await task.ConfigureAwait(false); // Returns a ConfiguredTaskAwaitable<TResult>. The returned ConfiguredTaskAwaitable<TResult> struct is awaitable. And it is not Task at all: public struct ConfiguredTaskAwaitable<TResult> { private readonly ConfiguredTaskAwaiter m_configuredTaskAwaiter; internal ConfiguredTaskAwaitable(Task<TResult> task, bool continueOnCapturedContext) { this.m_configuredTaskAwaiter = new ConfiguredTaskAwaiter(task, continueOnCapturedContext); } public ConfiguredTaskAwaiter GetAwaiter() { return this.m_configuredTaskAwaiter; } } It has one GetAwaiter() method. Actually in part 1 we have seen that Task has GetAwaiter() method too: public class Task { public TaskAwaiter GetAwaiter() { return new TaskAwaiter(this); } } public class Task<TResult> : Task { public new TaskAwaiter<TResult> GetAwaiter() { return new TaskAwaiter<TResult>(this); } } Task.Yield() is a another example: await Task.Yield(); // Returns a YieldAwaitable. The returned YieldAwaitable is not Task either: public struct YieldAwaitable { public YieldAwaiter GetAwaiter() { return default(YieldAwaiter); } } Again, it just has one GetAwaiter() method. In this article, we will look at what is awaitable. The awaitable / awaiter pattern By observing different awaitable / awaiter types, we can tell that an object is awaitable if It has a GetAwaiter() method (instance method or extension method); Its GetAwaiter() method returns an awaiter. An object is an awaiter if: It implements INotifyCompletion or ICriticalNotifyCompletion interface; It has an IsCompleted, which has a getter and returns a Boolean; it has a GetResult() method, which returns void, or a result. This awaitable / awaiter pattern is very similar to the iteratable / iterator pattern. Here is the interface definitions of iteratable / iterator: public interface IEnumerable { IEnumerator GetEnumerator(); } public interface IEnumerator { object Current { get; } bool MoveNext(); void Reset(); } public interface IEnumerable<out T> : IEnumerable { IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator(); } public interface IEnumerator<out T> : IDisposable, IEnumerator { T Current { get; } } In case you are not familiar with the out keyword, please find out the explanation in Understanding C# Covariance And Contravariance (2) Interfaces. The “missing” IAwaitable / IAwaiter interfaces Similar to IEnumerable and IEnumerator interfaces, awaitable / awaiter can be visualized by IAwaitable / IAwaiter interfaces too. This is the non-generic version: public interface IAwaitable { IAwaiter GetAwaiter(); } public interface IAwaiter : INotifyCompletion // or ICriticalNotifyCompletion { // INotifyCompletion has one method: void OnCompleted(Action continuation); // ICriticalNotifyCompletion implements INotifyCompletion, // also has this method: void UnsafeOnCompleted(Action continuation); bool IsCompleted { get; } void GetResult(); } Please notice GetResult() returns void here. Task.GetAwaiter() / TaskAwaiter.GetResult() is of such case. And this is the generic version: public interface IAwaitable<out TResult> { IAwaiter<TResult> GetAwaiter(); } public interface IAwaiter<out TResult> : INotifyCompletion // or ICriticalNotifyCompletion { bool IsCompleted { get; } TResult GetResult(); } Here the only difference is, GetResult() return a result. Task<TResult>.GetAwaiter() / TaskAwaiter<TResult>.GetResult() is of this case. Please notice .NET does not define these IAwaitable / IAwaiter interfaces at all. As an UI designer, I guess the reason is, IAwaitable interface will constraint GetAwaiter() to be instance method. Actually C# supports both GetAwaiter() instance method and GetAwaiter() extension method. Here I use these interfaces only for better visualizing what is awaitable / awaiter. Now, if looking at above ConfiguredTaskAwaitable / ConfiguredTaskAwaiter, YieldAwaitable / YieldAwaiter, Task / TaskAwaiter pairs again, they all “implicitly” implement these “missing” IAwaitable / IAwaiter interfaces. In the next part, we will see how to implement awaitable / awaiter. Await any function / action In C# await cannot be used with lambda. This code: int result = await (() => 0); will cause a compiler error: Cannot await 'lambda expression' This is easy to understand because this lambda expression (() => 0) may be a function or a expression tree. Obviously we mean function here, and we can tell compiler in this way: int result = await new Func<int>(() => 0); It causes an different error: Cannot await 'System.Func<int>' OK, now the compiler is complaining the type instead of syntax. With the understanding of the awaitable / awaiter pattern, Func<TResult> type can be easily made into awaitable. GetAwaiter() instance method, using IAwaitable / IAwaiter interfaces First, similar to above ConfiguredTaskAwaitable<TResult>, a FuncAwaitable<TResult> can be implemented to wrap Func<TResult>: internal struct FuncAwaitable<TResult> : IAwaitable<TResult> { private readonly Func<TResult> function; public FuncAwaitable(Func<TResult> function) { this.function = function; } public IAwaiter<TResult> GetAwaiter() { return new FuncAwaiter<TResult>(this.function); } } FuncAwaitable<TResult> wrapper is used to implement IAwaitable<TResult>, so it has one instance method, GetAwaiter(), which returns a IAwaiter<TResult>, which wraps that Func<TResult> too. FuncAwaiter<TResult> is used to implement IAwaiter<TResult>: public struct FuncAwaiter<TResult> : IAwaiter<TResult> { private readonly Task<TResult> task; public FuncAwaiter(Func<TResult> function) { this.task = new Task<TResult>(function); this.task.Start(); } bool IAwaiter<TResult>.IsCompleted { get { return this.task.IsCompleted; } } TResult IAwaiter<TResult>.GetResult() { return this.task.Result; } void INotifyCompletion.OnCompleted(Action continuation) { new Task(continuation).Start(); } } Now a function can be awaited in this way: int result = await new FuncAwaitable<int>(() => 0); GetAwaiter() extension method As IAwaitable shows, all that an awaitable needs is just a GetAwaiter() method. In above code, FuncAwaitable<TResult> is created as a wrapper of Func<TResult> and implements IAwaitable<TResult>, so that there is a  GetAwaiter() instance method. If a GetAwaiter() extension method  can be defined for Func<TResult>, then FuncAwaitable<TResult> is no longer needed: public static class FuncExtensions { public static IAwaiter<TResult> GetAwaiter<TResult>(this Func<TResult> function) { return new FuncAwaiter<TResult>(function); } } So a Func<TResult> function can be directly awaited: int result = await new Func<int>(() => 0); Using the existing awaitable / awaiter - Task / TaskAwaiter Remember the most frequently used awaitable / awaiter - Task / TaskAwaiter. With Task / TaskAwaiter, FuncAwaitable / FuncAwaiter are no longer needed: public static class FuncExtensions { public static TaskAwaiter<TResult> GetAwaiter<TResult>(this Func<TResult> function) { Task<TResult> task = new Task<TResult>(function); task.Start(); return task.GetAwaiter(); // Returns a TaskAwaiter<TResult>. } } Similarly, with this extension method: public static class ActionExtensions { public static TaskAwaiter GetAwaiter(this Action action) { Task task = new Task(action); task.Start(); return task.GetAwaiter(); // Returns a TaskAwaiter. } } an action can be awaited as well: await new Action(() => { }); Now any function / action can be awaited: await new Action(() => HelperMethods.IO()); // or: await new Action(HelperMethods.IO); If function / action has parameter(s), closure can be used: int arg0 = 0; int arg1 = 1; int result = await new Action(() => HelperMethods.IO(arg0, arg1)); Using Task.Run() The above code is used to demonstrate how awaitable / awaiter can be implemented. Because it is a common scenario to await a function / action, so .NET provides a built-in API: Task.Run(): public class Task2 { public static Task Run(Action action) { // The implementation is similar to: Task task = new Task(action); task.Start(); return task; } public static Task<TResult> Run<TResult>(Func<TResult> function) { // The implementation is similar to: Task<TResult> task = new Task<TResult>(function); task.Start(); return task; } } In reality, this is how we await a function: int result = await Task.Run(() => HelperMethods.IO(arg0, arg1)); and await a action: await Task.Run(() => HelperMethods.IO());

    Read the article

  • How to display workflow related tasks in the item display page where the workflow is currently running on in SharePoint2013

    - by ybbest
    In one of the project, I need to display workflow related tasks in the item display page where the workflow is currently running on. To achieve this, I’d like to add the tasks list view web part and using the connected web part to achieve this.(ID=workflowitemid) However, to make it work I need to unhide the workflowitemid field in the task list, as it is hidden field and also cantogglehidden field is set to false. I need to use reflection to change the cantogglehidden field to true as it only has getter in the API and then I am able to unhide the field. You can download the script here. However, it is not ideal (make your environment not supported by Microsoft) to display tasks this way. Another way to display the related task is to use SharePoint designer solution with List view web part and data source. Here are the steps. 1. Create a new list display form as below 2. Edit the custom display form in advanced mode. 3. Find the PlaceHolderMain contentplace hoder and insert the DataView by choosing the associated workflow tasks list as below 4. Go to the List View Tools >> OPTIONS 5. Create a Parameter called workflowitemId Parameter which retrieve the value from the ID querystring as below 6. Create a filter based on UIVersion = workflowitemId as below ,we are going to change the UIVersion to WorkflowItemId property later as WorkflowItemId is a hidden field and cannot be selected from the wizard. 7. Replace UIVersion with WorkflowItemId in the caml for the XsltListViewWebPart. From: TO 8. Go to the new custom display page at http://yourserver/Lists/aa/CustomDisplayPage.aspx?ID=414, you will see the associated tasks are showing in the page. References: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint-designer-help/watch-this-design-a-document-review-workflow-solution-HA010256417.aspx (Video 12 and 13)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >