welcome to the ruote mailing list.
> > (...)
> > Attached is a sample script which demonstrates this behavior. It can be
> > run in 2 ways:
> > > ruby ruote-workitem-field-update-test.rb process
> > > ruby ruote-workitem-field-update-test.rb update
> > Passing the 'process' argument shows the expected behavior. Passing the
> > 'update' argument shows the unexpected behavior (the workitem value is
> > nil). It seems like the storage_participants : method is returning a
> > cached, stale workitem. What am I doing wrong? Am I using ruote
> > incorrectly?
Ah, ok. the update fails. I've modified your code so that it makes it
It's OK to subclass the storage participant (I think I even advised it
sometimes on this mailing list...) So your could should work.
Here is a fix:
It makes sure what is returned by StorageParticipant#workitem has the current
"_rev" so that the following update is successful.
(I will make sure thate StorageParticipant#update updates the _rev as well,
so that update can be called multiple times in a row.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:07:14PM +0200, Hartog De Mik wrote:
> I use storage participant to ...store stuff, logicly you could decide to
> instantly reply, but imho the essence is not to reply and let the process
> sit right there, until some external force re-applies or proceeds.
> I am a naughty boy and I let the external force update my workitems from
> outside the process (yes; I know this may be seen as evil)
This is the vanilla use case, evil vanilla? ;-)
Best regards, I hope this helps,
John Mettraux - http://lambda.io/jmettraux