Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adjust Exception Behaviour during BPMN, CMMN, Decision Parsing #3630

Open
1 task
psavidis opened this issue Aug 7, 2023 · 1 comment
Open
1 task

Adjust Exception Behaviour during BPMN, CMMN, Decision Parsing #3630

psavidis opened this issue Aug 7, 2023 · 1 comment
Labels
type:task Issues that are a change to the project that is neither a feature nor a bug fix.

Comments

@psavidis
Copy link
Contributor

psavidis commented Aug 7, 2023

Acceptance Criteria (Required on creation)

As a User of the Java & REST API, i want the parsing of the different deployable resources to be consistent in the case of missing HistoryTimeToLive.

Hints

  • Currently, BPMN Parse exceptions will be handled as 400 error response (BAD_REQUEST)
  • Cases & Definition Parse exceptions are wrapped into a ProcessEngineException which in turn is handled with a 500 error response code. It should be 400.
  • We need to Design how this exception handling is going to be achieved in favour of the API.

Links

Breakdown

Pull Requests

No tasks being tracked yet.

Dev2QA handover

  • Does this ticket need a QA test and the testing goals are not clear from the description? Add a Dev2QA handover comment
@psavidis psavidis added the type:task Issues that are a change to the project that is neither a feature nor a bug fix. label Aug 7, 2023
@psavidis psavidis self-assigned this Aug 7, 2023
@psavidis psavidis changed the title Exception Behaviour during BPMN, CMMN, Decision Parsing Adjust Exception Behaviour during BPMN, CMMN, Decision Parsing Aug 14, 2023
@tasso94
Copy link
Member

tasso94 commented Sep 5, 2023

Hi @psavidis,
Thanks for raising this problem.

Since this behavior did not change with your code changes, i.e., a TTL with a not-allowed value led to the same error behavior in the past, I would keep everything as it is and wait for user feedback. We could potentially address this after collecting more evidence that this is really a problem.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type:task Issues that are a change to the project that is neither a feature nor a bug fix.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants