interesting !

You should play with "run if" actions, + adding a variable to collect the actual approval State after each Task approval.

Then you put some "Run If" conditions whenever your status doesn't meet the correct value.

You just need to create the logic with this variable.

Would it work or I'm missing a point?

I don’t think a run-if would stop and wait. If the condition is not met, then the workflow would hop the run-if.

I’m toying with wait for item update and creating a field to update as soon as both responses are ready.

Hello Robert Sieloff​ -

Rather than creating two flexi tasks and running in parallel, why not create one task and how both groups assigned to it. Given that for both groups, all need to approve OR one reject, this can be consolidated down to one action. I would capture who rejected it (what group) and then once it circles back to the second level of approval, create a task for that group.

For this example, you would need 4 states:

First level of approval, second level (both groups),  third level for group A, and third level for group B.

Hope this helps!

Hi Jesse,

That is an excellent idea.  One thing I hate is that in the flexiTask as soon as one person hits reject all others are abandoned.  So all the other recipients then receive a please approve message and as soon as someone hits reject everyone that did not do anything yet gets a no reply needed message.

I went low tech to solve this issue.  Instead of using state machine, like I would have liked, I used a loop, tracked the approves and set variables incase there was a reject.  This allowed everyone the opportunity to reply before the loop kicked in and everything started again.  All the tasks were in a 'run if' block statement that would only run if in the past the signatory rejected.

the "no reply needed message" can be disabled if you don't like it.