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