For Each mode in the block

[former_member474221]

Hi

I have a receiver determination step after which i have a block in  "FOR EACH " mode and then a SEND step inside the block..

Here logic should be if there is a problem with the first receiver the rest of the receivers shoould also not receive the file ....This is actually the functionality of the FOR EACH mode of the block...

However  in myi case this is not happening...i mean if there is no receiver agreement for the first Receiver .....the second receiver is still receiver the file...

I mean there is no difference between PAR FOR EACH and FOR EACH .....what can be issue??

[udo_martens · Accepted solution]

Hi,

you need to define an exception for the send step. In the exception branch stop the process.

Regards,

Udo

[former_member474221 · Accepted solution]

Hi Udo,

My question is should not the block get processed sequentially ( FOR EACH mode ) ?

If there is a problem in the first message in the multiline container ....should not the rest be blocked

That is what is not happening for me....The rest of the messages are going successful even though first one is in error

[udo_martens · Accepted solution]

Hi,

should not the block get processed sequentially ( FOR EACH mode ) ?

yes, it is processed sequentially

If there is a problem in the first message in the multiline container ....should not the rest be blocked

If the send step was synchronous, yes, of course. But as long as it is asynchronous: The process did not receive a feed back from the receiver of the message. It has no information about the error. Therefore you need to request an acknowledgment in the send step.

Regards,

Udo

[former_member474221 · Accepted solution]

Hi Udo,

Thanks for a prompt reply...

Actually i had a problem with my receiver agreement of the first receiver...Here the MONI itself shows a red flag for 'receiver agreement missing' ....should not  the process block the second message in that case...

this is not happening for me.

[udo_martens · Accepted solution]

Hi,

we are not responsible for the behaviour of ccBPM, right? Just accept it as it is..

Regards,

Udo