Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Correlations are unnecessarily restrictive #1033

Open
S-Tim opened this issue Aug 12, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Correlations are unnecessarily restrictive #1033

S-Tim opened this issue Aug 12, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
Prio: Should This feature should be implemented. Type: breaking This is a breaking change. Take care while migrating. Type: enhancement New feature or request
Milestone

Comments

@S-Tim
Copy link
Contributor

S-Tim commented Aug 12, 2024

Scenario

  • camunda-bpm-taskpool version: any
  • Camunda BPM version: any

Current Behaviour

Currently correlations are represented as a CorrelationMap in the task and data entry events and domain models. This CorrelationMap is an alias for a VariableMap and represents pairs of EntryType to EntryId. Since this is a map, the key has to be unique, which makes it impossible to represent multiple correlations for the same EntryType even though this should be possible.

In the ProcessVariablesCorrelator it is the other way around. A ProcessVariableCorrelation for example, has global correlations as a map from EntryId or "Variable" to EntryType. This does not allow correlating the same variable to multiple entry types even though this should also be possible.

Apart from the mismatch of these two sides, using a map to represent the correlations is unnecessarily restrictive. Only the combination of EntryType and EntryId needs to be unique, so a Set of some data type that holds these two values would be good.

Wanted Behaviour

Correlations should be allowed for every unique tuple of EntryType and EntryId

Possible Workarounds

Since the correlations are overwritten with a task or data entry update it is also not possible to create these correlations using multiple events. So I don't think there is a workaround currently.

@S-Tim S-Tim added Type: enhancement New feature or request Prio: Should This feature should be implemented. Type: breaking This is a breaking change. Take care while migrating. labels Aug 12, 2024
@S-Tim S-Tim added this to the 4.2.1 milestone Aug 12, 2024
@zambrovski zambrovski modified the milestones: 4.2.1, 4.2.2 Aug 19, 2024
@zambrovski zambrovski modified the milestones: 4.2.2, 4.3.0 Oct 10, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Prio: Should This feature should be implemented. Type: breaking This is a breaking change. Take care while migrating. Type: enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants