Dissimilarity in behavior of tenant filter and group role filter in case team
Closed this issue · 2 comments
When creating case team user is not allowed to add role in consent group mapping which is not available in consent group member but in case of tenant filter even if tenant role is not available under tenant it can be provided as input .
This is about consent groups and case instances.
When instantiating a case with a consent group, then the case instance will only allow role mappings for consent group roles that have assigned members with the respective role. If not, the case instantiation will fail.
During case instance lifetime it is possible that a consent group member is resigned. So the case engine needs to be prepared somehow for unfulfilled roles.
Why not also allow incomplete consent groups during case instantiation?
The db scheme seems to allow this; there is no reference to the user:
Also the API allows it:
A side question: what will happen with incomplete consent groups during execution? Say I remove a needed user from a consent group with role X, which is referred to from the caseinstance as case role C. Now a task is assigned to role C, will that result in failure? Wil it get in a a waiting state till role X is fulfilled, or will it just silently block?
Concluded during call with @tpetter that the check during case instantiation will be removed.