Question

Case dependency going to repair flow

We have requirement in a way that the flow parent case cannot move to resolve stage unless the child case is resolved. This seems to be working fine in dev but there are sometimes errors in PROD environement . The parent goes to repair assignment and keeps sitting on wait shape.

Following is the error on parent case : .pxInsName: Keys of Instance Value must be specified

Since this scenario is not frequent and reporducing in DEV, not able to guess the issue. Please suggest solution to fix/debug.

Comments

Keep up to date on this post and subscribe to comments

November 12, 2019 - 2:48am

What's your actual solution, could you provide screenshots?

November 12, 2019 - 4:47am
Response to vaspoz

attached screenshot

November 12, 2019 - 7:14am
Response to NirupamaT4237

Is it happening then AFTER you complete the child case? or during?

November 13, 2019 - 1:28am
Response to vaspoz

Once child case is resolved, the parent case goes to repair flow and gets stuck in wait shape

November 13, 2019 - 9:46am
Response to NirupamaT4237

But can you still see the case ID on the top of the screen? the pxInsName contains the id in the format WO-24.

November 21, 2019 - 2:17am
Response to vaspoz

Yes i can see case id and pxInsname has the value

November 12, 2019 - 3:44am

Hello, 

Have you tried to double check your log files? At that specific time can you see any specific error? 

November 12, 2019 - 5:08am
Response to MarcLasserre_GCS

No new exceptions in logs were found

November 12, 2019 - 5:23am
Response to NirupamaT4237

What PRPC version is it? Maybe you could use the AddCoveredWork activity instead of CreateWorkPage activity can you?

November 12, 2019 - 5:44am
Response to MarcLasserre_GCS

We are in 8.1.0 version. I am using the smart shape to created child case. Can you give me reason behind changing the pxAddChildWork which is OOTB to above activity. Since this issue is not reporducible in DEV.

November 12, 2019 - 6:05am
Response to NirupamaT4237

Well, 

Of course I'm not recommending to apply that change directly in Production. It is always difficult to work on a configuration when you have nothing to replicate and test against. 

I've seen such issue generated in the past due to those activities. Could you trace in Production? Have you seen any patterns like mainly the same user having this issue or maybe passivation occuring?