Skip to main content

Why does BlackPoint add almost a rule for each InfoPath view but skip others? I noticed that after InfoPath Integration or a "Refresh" InfoPath adds a Submit rule for most of the views that sets the ActionName to the custom "Action Value".


Am I missing something or should we just be using the ActionName that comes with the _K2 fields? There doesn't seem to be any guidance on this at all so if anyone has a link that would be great.

What happens with blackpoint with InfoPath integration is when you associate a view with a workflow activity (InfoPath client event), it creates a rule on the submit button to display the view associated with that activity. If you don't assign a client activity for a view, then you won't have a rule written for that view. Therefore, the reason you don't see every view written in the submit rules is due to an activity not being associated with that view.


The relationship between Activities, the InfoPath Client Event and the rules makes sense. For the second half of my question, I probably should have included more info. I had to manually add additional submit rules for the Views that K2 missed, otherwise I get an error when trying to submit the form from those Views. I get an error similar to the one in this post, http://www.k2underground.com/forums/t/6029.aspx. It appears that K2 feeds off of the value of the ActionName field. And since the Submit rules were not created for some of the Views,  the value of ActionName was being sent to K2 with an empty value. The submit rules that K2 adds are pretty simple. For most of the Views on the form, it created a rule that says:


if DocumentView = <View Name> then set field ActionName = K2_Action


K2_Action was a custom field that we were advised to create for InfoPath integration. Perhaps I'm missing something but it seems kind of redundant for the custom field, K2_Action to simply just pass the value to the real ActionName field. I ended up just creating 1 catch-all Submit rule for the views that K2 did not account for. I'm not sure if that's safe but it seems to be working.


Reply