Close popover
Patrick George (georp1)
Lead System Architect
Pegasystems Inc.
georp1 Member since 2012 3 posts
Posted: July 15, 2016
Last activity: September 20, 2016

Unlinked specifications in Applications Profile in Pega 7.1.7

Hi guys,

We just completed a comprehensive 4 months POC at a client location and are in the process of starting inception. Since the application is multi-country implementation we have created a framework layer as well as an implementation layer for a model country. As an entry for the inception we have to generate an application profile document for the POC for a requirements gap analysis. The plan going forward is to expand the POC to a full fledged application.

The application has 5 case types 3 of which have some steps (multi-step processes) that are identical. For this reason, these processes were defined at the Application Framework Work class level rather than the case level.

The issue we are facing is with process level specifications.  If you look at the specifications from the case designer (by clicking on "Configure step behaviour") the specification are being displayed correctly. However, in the generated application profile the specifications for the common processes are being generated as being unlinked or unassociated.

We think the issue could be the implementation class association of the specification, but we could be wrong. The difference between a specification that is linked to a process in the same class as the case type versus the one linked to the process at the Framework Work class are shown in the screenshots attached.

Has anyone faced issues of this nature before? Is this an expected, if unwanted, behaviour? The client is quite excited about using this document as a live tracking document from requirements to application completion. If these specifications need to be manually re-associated, it's going to be huge disadvantage, especially as number of processes and case types are expected to increase.

If this is bug, has anyone faced it and is there a HotFix or work around? Manually updating the specifications everytime the document is generated is alright for now as the number of processes are few, however impractical in the long run.

Any advice on resolving this issue would be greatly appreciated.



***Updated by moderator: Lochan to add Categories; added enhancement request details***

Low-Code App Development Case Management
Moderation Team has archived post