_LineInst Table has missing data?

  • 27 November 2007
  • 5 replies
  • 1 view

Badge +5

Hi,

I have been picking away at building a reporting tool that interrogates a process instance in the K2 database in order to follow it's past route through the system.

It would appear that the K2Log.._LineInst table has a column empty that kind of scuppers any attempt to do it...

The "FinishActInstID" column is always zero - meaning you can never totally work out which line a workflow took (you could go around the houses and work out the activity ID via the _Line table, and work back from there, but it's not going to be 100% accurate).

Is this a known issue with K2 2003 ?

Has anybody else done something like this? 


5 replies

Badge +11

Hi Jonathan,


Well, known issue in the sense that we know we don't use that field any more - was kept in for backwards compatibility.


Each LineInst contains a LineID which refers to _Line.ID which then contains a StartID and FinishID which corresponds to specific _Act.IDs.


HTH,


Ockert

Badge +5

I thought that might be the case...

The lack of the data effectively means that you cannot be sure of the link between the line instances (and their results), and the activity instance they lead on to - meaning you cannot accurately re-trace the running of a process instance.

I hope I'm making sense...

 Jonathan
 

Badge +5

I just thought of a better way of explaining myself...

Given the data stored in the K2 database, you cannot reliably find out which specific Activity Instance was brought into existence by a specific Line Instance.

You could perhaps say "which Activity Instance for this Process Instance ID, happened after the activity, and has the same Activity ID as the Line FinishID" - but I think that's a bit of a bodge... 

Badge +11

I don't fully follow your argument but it is possible to follow the flow by using a combination of Instance Data (generated in runtime) and Definition Data (generated in design time) as I explained above.


Regards,


Ockert

Badge +5

 My argument is that you cannot absolutely accurately find the activity instance that a line instance lead towards.

 You can find the activity instance that happened immediately after the line instance, and that is of the same type of activity as the one the line leads to - but it isn't the same as saying "this instance of this line lead to this activity instance".

 


 

Reply