Skip to main content
Nintex Community Menu Bar

Idea has been created for this, please vote for it! (https://ideas.nintex.com/ideas/CNV-I-314)

 

We’re finding that the new Error Handling features are great - when they work.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of the errors we’ve gotten since its introduction still cause the workflows to fail. In almost all these cases, retrying the failing command would have succeeded, which is the point of the error handling.

 

My assumption is that the errors we’re receiving aren’t setup to apply to Nintex’s error handling. Ideally (to me at least), this caveat wouldn’t even exist, and the error handling could apply to ALL instances where a step failed, regardless of how it failed.

 

My question is this - If we have an error that we think error handling should be capable of catching, but isn’t, what is the preferred way for us to tell Nintex that we’d like to have it supported?  I presume either a support case or an Idea submission, but I’m making a forum post so that it’s public as to what way Nintex prefers.  I know It has been eluded to in a few different areas that this is just the “first stage” of error handling, and that other stages are planned. However, since I don’t know what is planned, I don’t know if this something that we should be communicating to Nintex now, or if these things are already planned to be addressed in the future. 

 

Thank you!

(Pinging @kate since you’ve previously responded to an Error Handling question)

Hi @bsikes,

Glad to hear you like the overall feature, but sorry about majority of your scenarios not being supported.
Our intent was to select specific errors that can be remediated, to reduce the effort of designers having to fail instances. We were expecting feedback, where there were errors we’d missed or not anticipated - Can you create a new Idea and add these scenarios and errors (where possible) so the team can review and investigate?

Subsequent phases of Error handling were more broad concepts rather than expanding to cover other errors. The ideas include:

  • Bulk resolve - Allow designers to address multiple instances at once
  • Errors to trigger a workflow, which tenant admins could design and define for themselves - allows admins to add any of the NAC actions enabling delegation and escalations and external ticket creations, etc.
  • Error handling per action - Allow designers to select certain actions instead of entire workflows. Could also offer options like “on error, skip this action”.

Please do note that these are still in exploration.

If you have any other thoughts, ideas, preferences, requirements, we’d love to run an exploration session with you in the future, if you’re open to it.

Regards,

Kate Huynh

@kate I’ll certainly make an idea for it. The only difficult thing is that for a number of the errors, Nintex doesn’t pass on the error code in the message of the failed action. It gives the message, but not the code. 

 

May I ask, what the reasoning was for taking a targeted approach and only handling specific scenarios for Error Handling? Obviously, many errors will continue to be present and retrying an action won’t resolve that. But there’s also many errors that don’t, and this approach sadly misses those. 

Thank you

Idea has been added: https://ideas.nintex.com/ideas/CNV-I-314

Please vote for it!

Reply


View our Community Site Map

Nintex Community Sitemap
Terms & ConditionsCookie settings