Hi Tatjana.
I appreciate your responses, but it's not my intention to argue beyond reasonable doubt
why Broadcom should improve the user experience in that point.
I think I have sufficiently made the point that this aspect of the product is not intuitive and that it has, in practical use, confused part of our user base and some admins also. I have had other discussions as a result of this thread, offline and online, wherein other Automic users were also speculating why the product does or does not behaves in certain ways in this aspect. If a feature in a GUI sparks such discussion and speculation as to how it works or why it works the way it does among the intended user base, that's already a UX fail to me and thus, an opportunity for doing something better.
Just one more thing of note though. The user has now cancelled the parent job plan. The jobs (which were always showing as ENDED_OK in the executions, that much has always been undisputed) and which were showing as BLOCKED in the monitor are now showing as ENDED_OK in the monitor also, they are now yellow and have a BLOCKED symbol:
Original Message:
Sent: 11-12-2019 04:42 AM
From: Franz Zalubil
Subject: Retroactive blocking of individual jobs
Hi Carsten,
please change on "END" to ANY_OK or ENDED_OK for 3 and 4. Here the status ENDED_NOT_OK what meas the status where "END" should continue and "ELSE" goes to block 3 and 4.
Maybe the idea is to abend the workflow then the decision on END should be ENDED_OK else ABEND, what is setting the workflow to not OK.
Best, Franz