BPM, Workflow, and Case

Hi!

I would like to ask you if it is possible to change the mapping of input and output variables to the classic mappings that were in older versions of BPM/BAW? We are currently using BAW version 23.0.1 (Build Number: cf232303.01). This new way of mapping is terribly frustrating.

Hello Lukas,

I am curious to know what you are finding frustrating. The objective has been to simplify and reduce the amount of code that might be needed and also to provide graphical mapping (see 23.0.3). it would help to understand what you don't like.

Stuart Jones

Hi!

I would like to ask you if it is possible to change the mapping of input and output variables to the classic mappings that were in older versions of BPM/BAW? We are currently using BAW version 23.0.1 (Build Number: cf232303.01). This new way of mapping is terribly frustrating.

In the case of the previous solution, when I wanted to determine the places where a given variable could change, I would click on the services in the diagram and see immediately which variables are used by the service. In the new solution, I need to click on the service, launch a dialog window, switch between input and output mapping tab, and close the dialog window.

Everyone in our team is complaining about this change.

------------------------------
Paweł Szyszkowski

Original Message:
Sent: Thu January 25, 2024 05:37 PM
From: Stuart Jones
Subject: Change on classic input/output mapping variables on process diagram

Hello Lukas,

I am curious to know what you are finding frustrating. The objective has been to simplify and reduce the amount of code that might be needed and also to provide graphical mapping (see 23.0.3). it would help to understand what you don't like.

Stuart Jones

------------------------------
Stuart Jones
Business Automation Technical Specialist
IBM
Cedar Rapids IA
630 390 4436

Original Message:
Sent: Wed January 24, 2024 06:37 AM
From: Lukas Davis
Subject: Change on classic input/output mapping variables on process diagram

Hi!

I would like to ask you if it is possible to change the mapping of input and output variables to the classic mappings that were in older versions of BPM/BAW? We are currently using BAW version 23.0.1 (Build Number: cf232303.01). This new way of mapping is terribly frustrating.

------------------------------
Lukas Davis
------------------------------

Hello Lukas,

I am curious to know what you are finding frustrating. The objective has been to simplify and reduce the amount of code that might be needed and also to provide graphical mapping (see 23.0.3). it would help to understand what you don't like.

Stuart Jones

Hi!

I would like to ask you if it is possible to change the mapping of input and output variables to the classic mappings that were in older versions of BPM/BAW? We are currently using BAW version 23.0.1 (Build Number: cf232303.01). This new way of mapping is terribly frustrating.

Hello Lukas,

I am curious to know what you are finding frustrating. The objective has been to simplify and reduce the amount of code that might be needed and also to provide graphical mapping (see 23.0.3). it would help to understand what you don't like.

Stuart Jones

Hi!

I would like to ask you if it is possible to change the mapping of input and output variables to the classic mappings that were in older versions of BPM/BAW? We are currently using BAW version 23.0.1 (Build Number: cf232303.01). This new way of mapping is terribly frustrating.

Hi!

I would like to ask you if it is possible to change the mapping of input and output variables to the classic mappings that were in older versions of BPM/BAW? We are currently using BAW version 23.0.1 (Build Number: cf232303.01). This new way of mapping is terribly frustrating.

Hi Lucas,

Can you post the picture of new way of variable mapping? We are curious to know how it is changed

Hi!

I would like to ask you if it is possible to change the mapping of input and output variables to the classic mappings that were in older versions of BPM/BAW? We are currently using BAW version 23.0.1 (Build Number: cf232303.01). This new way of mapping is terribly frustrating.

Hi!

I would like to ask you if it is possible to change the mapping of input and output variables to the classic mappings that were in older versions of BPM/BAW? We are currently using BAW version 23.0.1 (Build Number: cf232303.01). This new way of mapping is terribly frustrating.

Hello

We are trying to improve authoring in BAW with this feature. There are a number of things we believe are improvements.

Here are some for you:

• ability to observe structure of activity's inputs and outputs without leaving current editor
• ability to map individual, selected, fields of a complex input or output not just map whole inputs or outputs
• assistance when switching from mapping complex type to mapping fields, by conversion to mapping or each fields.
• no runtime error if mapping from a field which parent variable or a field that may not exist at runtime 
• no runtime error if mapping to a field which parent variable or a field that may not exist at runtime (have not been initialized), due to automatic, on demand initialization of complex inputs and variables by the engines when value mapped into a field of a complex variable or an input, thus eliminating need for scripts to initialize target complex objects
• intuitive entry of literals (e.g. String, Date) by typing or using graphical picker without a need to know JavaScript syntax or required format
• more real estate available (more mappings visible on the screen) when working with activity input mapping or output mapping
• no need to use JavaScript to create majority of data mapping
• improved validation of simple mappings vs legacy mappings specified by JavaScript
• more modern look and feel
• indicator for mapping that are executed by reference

• future: graphical mapping of elements inside lists
• future: UI consistency between graphical default value definition, assign activity and data mapping of all diagram node types.

We will continue to monitor this thread to see how we can improve graphical data mapping.  

Owen Cline

Workflow Product Manager

Hi!

I would like to ask you if it is possible to change the mapping of input and output variables to the classic mappings that were in older versions of BPM/BAW? We are currently using BAW version 23.0.1 (Build Number: cf232303.01). This new way of mapping is terribly frustrating.

Owen,

After looking into Lukas's points on the BAW 23.0.1 update, I have to say I strongly agree. The new process, requiring multiple clicks to track variable changes, would significantly hamper our efficiency, especially in our more complex processes with numerous services. Following a variable through the process is one of the most common activities we do.

I see the goal with these updates and the shift towards low-code features, but in this case its making one of our key tasks more cumbersome. For our current users, these low-code changes are actually quite low on the list of needs, yet the added complexity would be a significant obstacle. IBM should explore a compromise reverting back to quick variable mapping access, while incorporating some of the new features.

Hello

We are trying to improve authoring in BAW with this feature. There are a number of things we believe are improvements.

Here are some for you:

• ability to observe structure of activity's inputs and outputs without leaving current editor
• ability to map individual, selected, fields of a complex input or output not just map whole inputs or outputs
• assistance when switching from mapping complex type to mapping fields, by conversion to mapping or each fields.
• no runtime error if mapping from a field which parent variable or a field that may not exist at runtime 
• no runtime error if mapping to a field which parent variable or a field that may not exist at runtime (have not been initialized), due to automatic, on demand initialization of complex inputs and variables by the engines when value mapped into a field of a complex variable or an input, thus eliminating need for scripts to initialize target complex objects
• intuitive entry of literals (e.g. String, Date) by typing or using graphical picker without a need to know JavaScript syntax or required format
• more real estate available (more mappings visible on the screen) when working with activity input mapping or output mapping
• no need to use JavaScript to create majority of data mapping
• improved validation of simple mappings vs legacy mappings specified by JavaScript
• more modern look and feel
• indicator for mapping that are executed by reference

• future: graphical mapping of elements inside lists
• future: UI consistency between graphical default value definition, assign activity and data mapping of all diagram node types.

We will continue to monitor this thread to see how we can improve graphical data mapping.  

Owen Cline

Workflow Product Manager

Hi!

I would like to ask you if it is possible to change the mapping of input and output variables to the classic mappings that were in older versions of BPM/BAW? We are currently using BAW version 23.0.1 (Build Number: cf232303.01). This new way of mapping is terribly frustrating.

Hello,
In reading through the posts above, it seems that the focus of the discussion is on how the mapping dialogue is presented, rather than how the mapping itself is done. I see 2 main complaints:

1. I open the Data mapping tab and then I have to click again to see the mapping page. 
2. The mapping page is presented as 2 tabs, Input mapping and Output mapping rather than a single page

Have I interpreted this correctly? Thank you]

Owen,

After looking into Lukas's points on the BAW 23.0.1 update, I have to say I strongly agree. The new process, requiring multiple clicks to track variable changes, would significantly hamper our efficiency, especially in our more complex processes with numerous services. Following a variable through the process is one of the most common activities we do.

I see the goal with these updates and the shift towards low-code features, but in this case its making one of our key tasks more cumbersome. For our current users, these low-code changes are actually quite low on the list of needs, yet the added complexity would be a significant obstacle. IBM should explore a compromise reverting back to quick variable mapping access, while incorporating some of the new features.

Hello

We are trying to improve authoring in BAW with this feature. There are a number of things we believe are improvements.

Here are some for you:

• ability to observe structure of activity's inputs and outputs without leaving current editor
• ability to map individual, selected, fields of a complex input or output not just map whole inputs or outputs
• assistance when switching from mapping complex type to mapping fields, by conversion to mapping or each fields.
• no runtime error if mapping from a field which parent variable or a field that may not exist at runtime 
• no runtime error if mapping to a field which parent variable or a field that may not exist at runtime (have not been initialized), due to automatic, on demand initialization of complex inputs and variables by the engines when value mapped into a field of a complex variable or an input, thus eliminating need for scripts to initialize target complex objects
• intuitive entry of literals (e.g. String, Date) by typing or using graphical picker without a need to know JavaScript syntax or required format
• more real estate available (more mappings visible on the screen) when working with activity input mapping or output mapping
• no need to use JavaScript to create majority of data mapping
• improved validation of simple mappings vs legacy mappings specified by JavaScript
• more modern look and feel
• indicator for mapping that are executed by reference

• future: graphical mapping of elements inside lists
• future: UI consistency between graphical default value definition, assign activity and data mapping of all diagram node types.

We will continue to monitor this thread to see how we can improve graphical data mapping.  

Owen Cline

Workflow Product Manager

Hi!

I would like to ask you if it is possible to change the mapping of input and output variables to the classic mappings that were in older versions of BPM/BAW? We are currently using BAW version 23.0.1 (Build Number: cf232303.01). This new way of mapping is terribly frustrating.

Owen,

After looking into Lukas's points on the BAW 23.0.1 update, I have to say I strongly agree. The new process, requiring multiple clicks to track variable changes, would significantly hamper our efficiency, especially in our more complex processes with numerous services. Following a variable through the process is one of the most common activities we do.

I see the goal with these updates and the shift towards low-code features, but in this case its making one of our key tasks more cumbersome. For our current users, these low-code changes are actually quite low on the list of needs, yet the added complexity would be a significant obstacle. IBM should explore a compromise reverting back to quick variable mapping access, while incorporating some of the new features.

Hello

We are trying to improve authoring in BAW with this feature. There are a number of things we believe are improvements.

Here are some for you:

• ability to observe structure of activity's inputs and outputs without leaving current editor
• ability to map individual, selected, fields of a complex input or output not just map whole inputs or outputs
• assistance when switching from mapping complex type to mapping fields, by conversion to mapping or each fields.
• no runtime error if mapping from a field which parent variable or a field that may not exist at runtime 
• no runtime error if mapping to a field which parent variable or a field that may not exist at runtime (have not been initialized), due to automatic, on demand initialization of complex inputs and variables by the engines when value mapped into a field of a complex variable or an input, thus eliminating need for scripts to initialize target complex objects
• intuitive entry of literals (e.g. String, Date) by typing or using graphical picker without a need to know JavaScript syntax or required format
• more real estate available (more mappings visible on the screen) when working with activity input mapping or output mapping
• no need to use JavaScript to create majority of data mapping
• improved validation of simple mappings vs legacy mappings specified by JavaScript
• more modern look and feel
• indicator for mapping that are executed by reference

• future: graphical mapping of elements inside lists
• future: UI consistency between graphical default value definition, assign activity and data mapping of all diagram node types.

We will continue to monitor this thread to see how we can improve graphical data mapping.  

Owen Cline

Workflow Product Manager

Hi!

I would like to ask you if it is possible to change the mapping of input and output variables to the classic mappings that were in older versions of BPM/BAW? We are currently using BAW version 23.0.1 (Build Number: cf232303.01). This new way of mapping is terribly frustrating.

Hello

We are trying to improve authoring in BAW with this feature. There are a number of things we believe are improvements.

Here are some for you:

• ability to observe structure of activity's inputs and outputs without leaving current editor
• ability to map individual, selected, fields of a complex input or output not just map whole inputs or outputs
• assistance when switching from mapping complex type to mapping fields, by conversion to mapping or each fields.
• no runtime error if mapping from a field which parent variable or a field that may not exist at runtime 
• no runtime error if mapping to a field which parent variable or a field that may not exist at runtime (have not been initialized), due to automatic, on demand initialization of complex inputs and variables by the engines when value mapped into a field of a complex variable or an input, thus eliminating need for scripts to initialize target complex objects
• intuitive entry of literals (e.g. String, Date) by typing or using graphical picker without a need to know JavaScript syntax or required format
• more real estate available (more mappings visible on the screen) when working with activity input mapping or output mapping
• no need to use JavaScript to create majority of data mapping
• improved validation of simple mappings vs legacy mappings specified by JavaScript
• more modern look and feel
• indicator for mapping that are executed by reference

• future: graphical mapping of elements inside lists
• future: UI consistency between graphical default value definition, assign activity and data mapping of all diagram node types.

We will continue to monitor this thread to see how we can improve graphical data mapping.  

Owen Cline

Workflow Product Manager

Hi!

I would like to ask you if it is possible to change the mapping of input and output variables to the classic mappings that were in older versions of BPM/BAW? We are currently using BAW version 23.0.1 (Build Number: cf232303.01). This new way of mapping is terribly frustrating.

Hi!

I would like to ask you if it is possible to change the mapping of input and output variables to the classic mappings that were in older versions of BPM/BAW? We are currently using BAW version 23.0.1 (Build Number: cf232303.01). This new way of mapping is terribly frustrating.

I've been working with the Lombardi, IBM BPM, and IBM BAW products nearly every day for the past 16+ years and I whole-heartedly agree that the new CSHS variable mapping is awful and a complete departure from the original method which was quick, concise, and effective.  I understand some of Owen Cline's points about attempted improvements and perhaps trying to modernize the UI and lay the foundation for future powerful data mapping capabilities, but in my opinion many of those features might help in 1% of cases while simply and quickly mapping an input or output to a variable - which is what's needed 99% of the time - has become much more cumbersome and requires too much clicking just to view the current values.  If this functionality cannot be reverted completely, it would be great to at least provide the developer with an option to revert to the traditional data mapping method as a save-able user preference so you don't have to specify this each time you open the Process Designer.

If you agree and haven't upvoted the IBM Idea around this topic yet, please do so to help gain some traction: https://ideas.ibm.com/ideas/IWF-I-1113

Regards, Don

Hi!

I would like to ask you if it is possible to change the mapping of input and output variables to the classic mappings that were in older versions of BPM/BAW? We are currently using BAW version 23.0.1 (Build Number: cf232303.01). This new way of mapping is terribly frustrating.

I've been working with the Lombardi, IBM BPM, and IBM BAW products nearly every day for the past 16+ years and I whole-heartedly agree that the new CSHS variable mapping is awful and a complete departure from the original method which was quick, concise, and effective.  I understand some of Owen Cline's points about attempted improvements and perhaps trying to modernize the UI and lay the foundation for future powerful data mapping capabilities, but in my opinion many of those features might help in 1% of cases while simply and quickly mapping an input or output to a variable - which is what's needed 99% of the time - has become much more cumbersome and requires too much clicking just to view the current values.  If this functionality cannot be reverted completely, it would be great to at least provide the developer with an option to revert to the traditional data mapping method as a save-able user preference so you don't have to specify this each time you open the Process Designer.

If you agree and haven't upvoted the IBM Idea around this topic yet, please do so to help gain some traction: https://ideas.ibm.com/ideas/IWF-I-1113

Regards, Don

Hi!

I would like to ask you if it is possible to change the mapping of input and output variables to the classic mappings that were in older versions of BPM/BAW? We are currently using BAW version 23.0.1 (Build Number: cf232303.01). This new way of mapping is terribly frustrating.

I've been working with the Lombardi, IBM BPM, and IBM BAW products nearly every day for the past 16+ years and I whole-heartedly agree that the new CSHS variable mapping is awful and a complete departure from the original method which was quick, concise, and effective.  I understand some of Owen Cline's points about attempted improvements and perhaps trying to modernize the UI and lay the foundation for future powerful data mapping capabilities, but in my opinion many of those features might help in 1% of cases while simply and quickly mapping an input or output to a variable - which is what's needed 99% of the time - has become much more cumbersome and requires too much clicking just to view the current values.  If this functionality cannot be reverted completely, it would be great to at least provide the developer with an option to revert to the traditional data mapping method as a save-able user preference so you don't have to specify this each time you open the Process Designer.

If you agree and haven't upvoted the IBM Idea around this topic yet, please do so to help gain some traction: https://ideas.ibm.com/ideas/IWF-I-1113

Regards, Don

Hi!

I would like to ask you if it is possible to change the mapping of input and output variables to the classic mappings that were in older versions of BPM/BAW? We are currently using BAW version 23.0.1 (Build Number: cf232303.01). This new way of mapping is terribly frustrating.