- Sat Apr 27, 2019 4:56 pm
Here is an update based on some experimentation...
Using PM 3.2.1...
Assume that there are triggers defined in Process B in the Assignment, Before Routing and After Routing sections.
Let these triggers be named as A1 and A2 for Assignment, BR1 and BR2 for Before Routing, and AR1 and AR2 for After Routing.
Then, the following events have been observed...
1) Derivation of Process B happens in all cases
2) If there are PMF functions in any of these triggers, then they tend to get executed
3) However, saving of data tends to follow these rules...
a) If BR1 and BR2 are removed, then only variables defined in A2 get saved to the case, along with variables defined in AR2.
b) If BR1 or BR2 are included, then variables in A1 and A2 will not get saved to the case. In this scenario, if BR2 is sequenced after BR1, then variables defined in BR2 will get saved to the case, and not the variables defined in BR1. If AR2 is sequenced after AR1, then variables defined in AR2 will get saved to the case, and not the variables defined in AR1.
c) For variables in A1 to get saved to the case, then A1 should be sequenced as the last trigger in the Assignment section, and there should be no triggers in the Before Routing Section, but there can be triggers in the After Routing Section.
d) For variables in BR1 to get saved to the case, then BR1 should the last sequenced trigger in the Before Routing Section. In such a scenario, it does not matter what triggers are defined in the Assignment and After Routing sections.
e) For variables in AR1 to get saved to the case, then AR1 should the last sequenced trigger in the After Routing Section. In such a scenario, it does not matter what triggers are defined in the Assignment and Before Routing sections.
If these events can be replicated, then at least we have a set of rules to be followed for Process B to be derivated from Process A. I hope the need for such a set of rules is not required if improvements are made in PM, or have been made in versions after 3.2.1.