Future of MBPM - Metastorm BPM forums

Metastorm BPM forums

Process Mapping > Categories > Metastorm news > Future of MBPM

Note: Your browser does not have JavaScript enabled. Many features may not work properly without it. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Author

Comment Page 3 of 4 Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

Jerome

Guru
Registered:1158198299
Posts: 5,507

Posted 1401931276	Reply with quote #31

A quick demo of Bizagi: http://processmapping.com.au/demos/QuickStart/Bizagi/QS1_Bizagi_1_Process.html http://processmapping.com.au/demos/QuickStart/Bizagi/QS1_Bizagi_2_Data.html http://processmapping.com.au/demos/QuickStart/Bizagi/QS1_Bizagi_3_Forms.html http://processmapping.com.au/demos/QuickStart/Bizagi/QS1_Bizagi_4_Rules.html http://processmapping.com.au/demos/QuickStart/Bizagi/QS1_Bizagi_5_Roles.html http://processmapping.com.au/demos/QuickStart/Bizagi/QS1_Bizagi_6_Setup.html http://processmapping.com.au/demos/QuickStart/Bizagi/QS1_Bizagi_7_Test.html compared to the same process in MBPM9: http://processmapping.com.au/demos/QuickStart/MBPM9/QS_MBPM_0_Intro.html http://processmapping.com.au/demos/QuickStart/MBPM9/QS_MBPM_1_Tables.html http://processmapping.com.au/demos/QuickStart/MBPM9/QS_MBPM_2_Process.html http://processmapping.com.au/demos/QuickStart/MBPM9/QS_MBPM_3_Roles.html http://processmapping.com.au/demos/QuickStart/MBPM9/QS_MBPM_4_Rules.html http://processmapping.com.au/demos/QuickStart/MBPM9/QS_MBPM_5_Forms.html http://processmapping.com.au/demos/QuickStart/MBPM9/QS_MBPM_6_Setup.html http://processmapping.com.au/demos/QuickStart/MBPM9/QS_MBPM_7_Test.html __________________ Post an example, and we will have a much better idea what the problem is. In about 90% of posts, the problem is one of communication. Examples bridge that gap.
0 0 0

BMellert

Guru
Registered:1225130168
Posts: 688

Posted 1409847157	Reply with quote #32

v9.3.2.1 was recently released. Today on a phone call I was told 9.3.2.2 is slated for October, though I'm not sure when in October. 9.4 is due around year-end. HTML 5 is supposed to be supported, though the last I was told they still hadn't been able to get editable grids to be an option.
0 0 0

ryansaul

Member
Registered:1267684639
Posts: 16

Posted 1409872485	Reply with quote #33

Hi, Do not install 9.3.2.1; I installed it this week as I was awaiting the release for some bug fixes. If a text field has dependents and is dependent on another field (both checked); the text field becomes unusable and text is lost whilst typing. I logged this with OT and has been confirmed as a bug in the latest version. Cheers.
0 0 0

BMellert

Guru
Registered:1225130168
Posts: 688

Posted 1409934919	Reply with quote #34

Quote: Originally Posted by ryansaul Hi, Do not install 9.3.2.1; I installed it this week as I was awaiting the release for some bug fixes. If a text field has dependents and is dependent on another field (both checked); the text field becomes unusable and text is lost whilst typing. I logged this with OT and has been confirmed as a bug in the latest version. Cheers. Wow, that must be why 9.3.2.2 is due out relatively shortly (October supposedly). We aren't quite ready to upgrade atm anyway, having had to roll back from 9.3.2.0 (or maybe a 9.3.1 I don't recall) to 9.2.1.7.
0 0 0

suityou01

Veteran
Registered:1161108062
Posts: 213

Posted 1412764830	Reply with quote #35

Also having problems with 9.3.2.1. Editable grids and Oracle are badly broken. I managed to replicate in 9.2.0.0. The error is "System.Data.DBConcurrencyException: Concurrency violation: the UpdateCommand affected 0 of the expected 1 records." So now trying to patch my 9.2.0.0 box to 9.3.0.1 to check if this is still a problem. But the patches don't install, just get to 99% and then roll back. Very disconcerting.
0 0 0

Jerome

Guru
Registered:1158198299
Posts: 5,507

Posted 1412766315	Reply with quote #36

There is a registry hack to fix the registry stuff-up of the previous install. It should be documented in the installation notes (although probably not as descriptively as I have). I do recall that the 'hack to fix the stuff-up' did not work for us, so I had to manually find and delete the offending entries stuffed up by the previous install. QA, ain't it grand? __________________ Post an example, and we will have a much better idea what the problem is. In about 90% of posts, the problem is one of communication. Examples bridge that gap.
0 0 0

suityou01

Veteran
Registered:1161108062
Posts: 213

Posted 1412767481	Reply with quote #37

Version 9 install routines make me very nervous. Why can't google do this for me? :rolleyes:
0 0 0

suityou01

Veteran
Registered:1161108062
Posts: 213

Posted 1412767795	Reply with quote #38

Rolled back my VM to first thing this morning and still can't install 9.3.0. Any hints to these registry hacks greatly appreciated as I cannot see anything in the install set.
0 0 0

Jerome

Guru
Registered:1158198299
Posts: 5,507

Posted 1412769302	Reply with quote #39

OK, my memory may have failed me. I have 9.1.3.1/2/3 supersede reg files, not 9.2 ones. Having said that, it may be the same issue. As an example, from the lates (9.1.3.3) file, there is an entry: RE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Installer\UserData\S-1-5-18\Products\7E0DAF5C656A2E64DA378EE0C0EA5779\Patches\99DC302664564B1478AFA3040C36F621] "State"=dword:00000002 deleting this or similar entries may help. Take backups (export to a .reg file) first! __________________ Post an example, and we will have a much better idea what the problem is. In about 90% of posts, the problem is one of communication. Examples bridge that gap.
0 0 0

BMellert

Guru
Registered:1225130168
Posts: 688

Posted 1412774012	Reply with quote #40

Quote: Originally Posted by suityou01 The error is "System.Data.DBConcurrencyException: Concurrency violation: the UpdateCommand affected 0 of the expected 1 records." We had this in 9.2.1.7 (on SQL) and it turned out to be one of two things in our case. You may or may not have the same conditions, but I thought I'd mention just in case. 1. On save we used to do a check/clean-up of "empty" data rows, which sometimes caused this message. 2. We updated a value that made up the primary key, then deleted the record. Actually it was a similar "DeleteCommand..." message but its similar. To get around our occurrences of this, we do the check/clean-up in a separate action and changed the primary key to a proper key value and built a view to get around the lack of ability to specify a sort order on editable grids.
0 0 0

suityou01

Veteran
Registered:1161108062
Posts: 213

Posted 1413277657	Reply with quote #41

Rolling back to 9.3.0.1 cured the problem. So it looks like a regression issue with the latest patch. This is with OpenText to fix.
0 0 0

BMellert

Guru
Registered:1225130168
Posts: 688

Posted 1414674302	Reply with quote #42

Just an FYI if you don't get the notices and are on 9.3 ... 9.3.2.2 was released this week. Alas, initial testing has shown they didn't fix one item we identified in 9.2.1 that they said they'd make sure got into this release. It also seems passing in field values via the URL no longer works. Unfortunately this breaks nearly every "pop up" admin form (help, look ups, etc.). I have to check the release notes to determine if there is something about that there. Both have been raised with OT.
0 0 0

Jerome

Guru
Registered:1158198299
Posts: 5,507

Posted 1414713920	Reply with quote #43

Good to know QA is up the usual standard ... __________________ Post an example, and we will have a much better idea what the problem is. In about 90% of posts, the problem is one of communication. Examples bridge that gap.
0 0 0

BMellert

Guru
Registered:1225130168
Posts: 688

Posted 1415196937	Reply with quote #44

Regarding the item they said they would fix but didn't (even though they provided a release candidate) was that they could find no bug to fix with their provided fix, so we'd have to continue to use their release candidate any time we upgrade. Regarding the passing of form parameters, I guess there is a new web.config setting which allows filter parameters to be passed in, or not (default). Once that setting was added, or set to true, variable passing worked correctly. We have since discovered while editing that drop down fields appear as read-only (grey) even though they are full editable ... but only on IE10 and IE11. They display correctly on IE9.
0 0 0

BMellert

Guru
Registered:1225130168
Posts: 688

Posted 1426170487	Reply with quote #45

It seems all of the videos, at least those at the top of this chain (and a few elsewhere), are no longer available.
0 0 0

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 3 of 4 Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

Quick Navigation:

Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!

Modal title

Insert Code

Please paste your code into the box below: