I have been launching multiple times (test up to 40) the same rule, in the same incident, rule that launch an integration. I have sometime notice delays (workflows in running states, action pending - all that potentially due to my small local VM tests) but I was always able to trace each unique calls from the rule (workflow status, action status).
the only reason a workflow (and the action below) is not fired twice, it is because this WF is in running state on the exact same object source for the call.
Example :
LDAP call WF for user xben is running, if you ask twice for it, only the first will be running as when you start the 2nd time, it will "join" the first call still running.

For me it really depends on the object that initially make the call where you should investigate why you do not see your expected results

There are ideas to make looping native to the workflow but aren't scheduled at this point.

I may have misunderstood the use case and if so, this may not be applicable.

Ben

Hey Ben and Benoit,

thanks for your replies.

Benoit is stating that "a workflow doesn't fire twice if its in the running state on the exact same object source".  If I understand this correctly, it is what is happening with our use case.

We have a rule with a datatable defined as an object type and the workflow triggers when a row is created.  The workflow performs a LDAP lookup and enriches some columns of that row, but when during that lookup another row is added to that datatable the workflow isn't fired anymore.  Is that what you mean ?  I don't see a possibility to add a rule to a datatable row to avoid this situation.
I don't understand what you mean by 'join' in the sentence 'join the first call still running ' though.

Since I noticed only one entry in the datatable being enriched, I did exactly what Ben is suggesting.  I wait until I know no rows are added anymore (counting of the rows in the datatable), and I loop over all rows in that datatable to enrich every single row.  
For the moment it works, but I was wondering if there were more elegant ways to solve this problem.

Thanks again,

G

I have been launching multiple times (test up to 40) the same rule, in the same incident, rule that launch an integration. I have sometime notice delays (workflows in running states, action pending - all that potentially due to my small local VM tests) but I was always able to trace each unique calls from the rule (workflow status, action status).
the only reason a workflow (and the action below) is not fired twice, it is because this WF is in running state on the exact same object source for the call.
Example :
LDAP call WF for user xben is running, if you ask twice for it, only the first will be running as when you start the 2nd time, it will "join" the first call still running.

For me it really depends on the object that initially make the call where you should investigate why you do not see your expected results

There are ideas to make looping native to the workflow but aren't scheduled at this point.

I may have misunderstood the use case and if so, this may not be applicable.

Ben

Hey Ben and Benoit,

thanks for your replies.

Benoit is stating that "a workflow doesn't fire twice if its in the running state on the exact same object source".  If I understand this correctly, it is what is happening with our use case.

We have a rule with a datatable defined as an object type and the workflow triggers when a row is created.  The workflow performs a LDAP lookup and enriches some columns of that row, but when during that lookup another row is added to that datatable the workflow isn't fired anymore.  Is that what you mean ?  I don't see a possibility to add a rule to a datatable row to avoid this situation.
I don't understand what you mean by 'join' in the sentence 'join the first call still running ' though.

Since I noticed only one entry in the datatable being enriched, I did exactly what Ben is suggesting.  I wait until I know no rows are added anymore (counting of the rows in the datatable), and I loop over all rows in that datatable to enrich every single row.  
For the moment it works, but I was wondering if there were more elegant ways to solve this problem.

Thanks again,

G

I have been launching multiple times (test up to 40) the same rule, in the same incident, rule that launch an integration. I have sometime notice delays (workflows in running states, action pending - all that potentially due to my small local VM tests) but I was always able to trace each unique calls from the rule (workflow status, action status).
the only reason a workflow (and the action below) is not fired twice, it is because this WF is in running state on the exact same object source for the call.
Example :
LDAP call WF for user xben is running, if you ask twice for it, only the first will be running as when you start the 2nd time, it will "join" the first call still running.

For me it really depends on the object that initially make the call where you should investigate why you do not see your expected results

There are ideas to make looping native to the workflow but aren't scheduled at this point.

I may have misunderstood the use case and if so, this may not be applicable.

Ben

Hey Ben and Benoit,

thanks for your replies.

Benoit is stating that "a workflow doesn't fire twice if its in the running state on the exact same object source".  If I understand this correctly, it is what is happening with our use case.

We have a rule with a datatable defined as an object type and the workflow triggers when a row is created.  The workflow performs a LDAP lookup and enriches some columns of that row, but when during that lookup another row is added to that datatable the workflow isn't fired anymore.  Is that what you mean ?  I don't see a possibility to add a rule to a datatable row to avoid this situation.
I don't understand what you mean by 'join' in the sentence 'join the first call still running ' though.

Since I noticed only one entry in the datatable being enriched, I did exactly what Ben is suggesting.  I wait until I know no rows are added anymore (counting of the rows in the datatable), and I loop over all rows in that datatable to enrich every single row.  
For the moment it works, but I was wondering if there were more elegant ways to solve this problem.

Thanks again,

G

I have been launching multiple times (test up to 40) the same rule, in the same incident, rule that launch an integration. I have sometime notice delays (workflows in running states, action pending - all that potentially due to my small local VM tests) but I was always able to trace each unique calls from the rule (workflow status, action status).
the only reason a workflow (and the action below) is not fired twice, it is because this WF is in running state on the exact same object source for the call.
Example :
LDAP call WF for user xben is running, if you ask twice for it, only the first will be running as when you start the 2nd time, it will "join" the first call still running.

For me it really depends on the object that initially make the call where you should investigate why you do not see your expected results

There are ideas to make looping native to the workflow but aren't scheduled at this point.

I may have misunderstood the use case and if so, this may not be applicable.

Ben

Hey Ben and Benoit,

thanks for your replies.

Benoit is stating that "a workflow doesn't fire twice if its in the running state on the exact same object source".  If I understand this correctly, it is what is happening with our use case.

We have a rule with a datatable defined as an object type and the workflow triggers when a row is created.  The workflow performs a LDAP lookup and enriches some columns of that row, but when during that lookup another row is added to that datatable the workflow isn't fired anymore.  Is that what you mean ?  I don't see a possibility to add a rule to a datatable row to avoid this situation.
I don't understand what you mean by 'join' in the sentence 'join the first call still running ' though.

Since I noticed only one entry in the datatable being enriched, I did exactly what Ben is suggesting.  I wait until I know no rows are added anymore (counting of the rows in the datatable), and I loop over all rows in that datatable to enrich every single row.  
For the moment it works, but I was wondering if there were more elegant ways to solve this problem.

Thanks again,

G

I have been launching multiple times (test up to 40) the same rule, in the same incident, rule that launch an integration. I have sometime notice delays (workflows in running states, action pending - all that potentially due to my small local VM tests) but I was always able to trace each unique calls from the rule (workflow status, action status).
the only reason a workflow (and the action below) is not fired twice, it is because this WF is in running state on the exact same object source for the call.
Example :
LDAP call WF for user xben is running, if you ask twice for it, only the first will be running as when you start the 2nd time, it will "join" the first call still running.

For me it really depends on the object that initially make the call where you should investigate why you do not see your expected results

There are ideas to make looping native to the workflow but aren't scheduled at this point.

I may have misunderstood the use case and if so, this may not be applicable.

Ben

so for me you should get al your WF & actions below running correctly, as the source is different each time like me

@Kris Caron and below from the same artifact, I have also 6 WF launched, same source artifact but different WF name:

(errors are unfinished/incorrect/cascading WFs) - 3 different enrichment from OOTB App Exchange functions

Hey Ben and Benoit,

thanks for your replies.

Benoit is stating that "a workflow doesn't fire twice if its in the running state on the exact same object source".  If I understand this correctly, it is what is happening with our use case.

We have a rule with a datatable defined as an object type and the workflow triggers when a row is created.  The workflow performs a LDAP lookup and enriches some columns of that row, but when during that lookup another row is added to that datatable the workflow isn't fired anymore.  Is that what you mean ?  I don't see a possibility to add a rule to a datatable row to avoid this situation.
I don't understand what you mean by 'join' in the sentence 'join the first call still running ' though.

Since I noticed only one entry in the datatable being enriched, I did exactly what Ben is suggesting.  I wait until I know no rows are added anymore (counting of the rows in the datatable), and I loop over all rows in that datatable to enrich every single row.  
For the moment it works, but I was wondering if there were more elegant ways to solve this problem.

Thanks again,

G

I have been launching multiple times (test up to 40) the same rule, in the same incident, rule that launch an integration. I have sometime notice delays (workflows in running states, action pending - all that potentially due to my small local VM tests) but I was always able to trace each unique calls from the rule (workflow status, action status).
the only reason a workflow (and the action below) is not fired twice, it is because this WF is in running state on the exact same object source for the call.
Example :
LDAP call WF for user xben is running, if you ask twice for it, only the first will be running as when you start the 2nd time, it will "join" the first call still running.

For me it really depends on the object that initially make the call where you should investigate why you do not see your expected results

There are ideas to make looping native to the workflow but aren't scheduled at this point.

I may have misunderstood the use case and if so, this may not be applicable.

Ben

Hi Benoit,

I do not fully understand when you say "each datatable source is different"

A way I can think of it is that you are using the "datatable helper functions" and that you're using the rules 'Get DT Row', 'Update DT Row' and potentially 'Delete DT Row'.  Am I correct with this assumption ?  

If not, could you elaborate a bit more on how you take care to get each datatable source different ?

Thanks a lot.

Kind regards,

G

so for me you should get al your WF & actions below running correctly, as the source is different each time like me

@Kris Caron and below from the same artifact, I have also 6 WF launched, same source artifact but different WF name:

(errors are unfinished/incorrect/cascading WFs) - 3 different enrichment from OOTB App Exchange functions

Hey Ben and Benoit,

thanks for your replies.

Benoit is stating that "a workflow doesn't fire twice if its in the running state on the exact same object source".  If I understand this correctly, it is what is happening with our use case.

We have a rule with a datatable defined as an object type and the workflow triggers when a row is created.  The workflow performs a LDAP lookup and enriches some columns of that row, but when during that lookup another row is added to that datatable the workflow isn't fired anymore.  Is that what you mean ?  I don't see a possibility to add a rule to a datatable row to avoid this situation.
I don't understand what you mean by 'join' in the sentence 'join the first call still running ' though.

Since I noticed only one entry in the datatable being enriched, I did exactly what Ben is suggesting.  I wait until I know no rows are added anymore (counting of the rows in the datatable), and I loop over all rows in that datatable to enrich every single row.  
For the moment it works, but I was wondering if there were more elegant ways to solve this problem.

Thanks again,

G

I have been launching multiple times (test up to 40) the same rule, in the same incident, rule that launch an integration. I have sometime notice delays (workflows in running states, action pending - all that potentially due to my small local VM tests) but I was always able to trace each unique calls from the rule (workflow status, action status).
the only reason a workflow (and the action below) is not fired twice, it is because this WF is in running state on the exact same object source for the call.
Example :
LDAP call WF for user xben is running, if you ask twice for it, only the first will be running as when you start the 2nd time, it will "join" the first call still running.

For me it really depends on the object that initially make the call where you should investigate why you do not see your expected results

There are ideas to make looping native to the workflow but aren't scheduled at this point.

I may have misunderstood the use case and if so, this may not be applicable.

Ben

Hi Benoit,

I do not fully understand when you say "each datatable source is different"

A way I can think of it is that you are using the "datatable helper functions" and that you're using the rules 'Get DT Row', 'Update DT Row' and potentially 'Delete DT Row'.  Am I correct with this assumption ?  

If not, could you elaborate a bit more on how you take care to get each datatable source different ?

Thanks a lot.

Kind regards,

G

so for me you should get al your WF & actions below running correctly, as the source is different each time like me

@Kris Caron and below from the same artifact, I have also 6 WF launched, same source artifact but different WF name:

(errors are unfinished/incorrect/cascading WFs) - 3 different enrichment from OOTB App Exchange functions

Hey Ben and Benoit,

thanks for your replies.

Benoit is stating that "a workflow doesn't fire twice if its in the running state on the exact same object source".  If I understand this correctly, it is what is happening with our use case.

We have a rule with a datatable defined as an object type and the workflow triggers when a row is created.  The workflow performs a LDAP lookup and enriches some columns of that row, but when during that lookup another row is added to that datatable the workflow isn't fired anymore.  Is that what you mean ?  I don't see a possibility to add a rule to a datatable row to avoid this situation.
I don't understand what you mean by 'join' in the sentence 'join the first call still running ' though.

Since I noticed only one entry in the datatable being enriched, I did exactly what Ben is suggesting.  I wait until I know no rows are added anymore (counting of the rows in the datatable), and I loop over all rows in that datatable to enrich every single row.  
For the moment it works, but I was wondering if there were more elegant ways to solve this problem.

Thanks again,

G

I have been launching multiple times (test up to 40) the same rule, in the same incident, rule that launch an integration. I have sometime notice delays (workflows in running states, action pending - all that potentially due to my small local VM tests) but I was always able to trace each unique calls from the rule (workflow status, action status).
the only reason a workflow (and the action below) is not fired twice, it is because this WF is in running state on the exact same object source for the call.
Example :
LDAP call WF for user xben is running, if you ask twice for it, only the first will be running as when you start the 2nd time, it will "join" the first call still running.

For me it really depends on the object that initially make the call where you should investigate why you do not see your expected results

There are ideas to make looping native to the workflow but aren't scheduled at this point.

I may have misunderstood the use case and if so, this may not be applicable.

Ben

Hi Benoit,

I do not fully understand when you say "each datatable source is different"

A way I can think of it is that you are using the "datatable helper functions" and that you're using the rules 'Get DT Row', 'Update DT Row' and potentially 'Delete DT Row'.  Am I correct with this assumption ?  

If not, could you elaborate a bit more on how you take care to get each datatable source different ?

Thanks a lot.

Kind regards,

G

so for me you should get al your WF & actions below running correctly, as the source is different each time like me

@Kris Caron and below from the same artifact, I have also 6 WF launched, same source artifact but different WF name:

(errors are unfinished/incorrect/cascading WFs) - 3 different enrichment from OOTB App Exchange functions

Hey Ben and Benoit,

thanks for your replies.

Benoit is stating that "a workflow doesn't fire twice if its in the running state on the exact same object source".  If I understand this correctly, it is what is happening with our use case.

We have a rule with a datatable defined as an object type and the workflow triggers when a row is created.  The workflow performs a LDAP lookup and enriches some columns of that row, but when during that lookup another row is added to that datatable the workflow isn't fired anymore.  Is that what you mean ?  I don't see a possibility to add a rule to a datatable row to avoid this situation.
I don't understand what you mean by 'join' in the sentence 'join the first call still running ' though.

Since I noticed only one entry in the datatable being enriched, I did exactly what Ben is suggesting.  I wait until I know no rows are added anymore (counting of the rows in the datatable), and I loop over all rows in that datatable to enrich every single row.  
For the moment it works, but I was wondering if there were more elegant ways to solve this problem.

Thanks again,

G

I have been launching multiple times (test up to 40) the same rule, in the same incident, rule that launch an integration. I have sometime notice delays (workflows in running states, action pending - all that potentially due to my small local VM tests) but I was always able to trace each unique calls from the rule (workflow status, action status).
the only reason a workflow (and the action below) is not fired twice, it is because this WF is in running state on the exact same object source for the call.
Example :
LDAP call WF for user xben is running, if you ask twice for it, only the first will be running as when you start the 2nd time, it will "join" the first call still running.

For me it really depends on the object that initially make the call where you should investigate why you do not see your expected results

There are ideas to make looping native to the workflow but aren't scheduled at this point.

I may have misunderstood the use case and if so, this may not be applicable.

Ben