How to prevent REQ/RITM records closing when there's still active tasks?

MBarrott
Mega Sage

Feel like this might be an easy fix but I also want to get best practice on this. 

 

Once a catalog item has been submitted our techs have found that sometimes additional tasks need to be created against the RITM record. This works fine but once the original sc_task has been closed, the REQ and RITM records also close out even though there is a secondary task still active. 

 

What would be the best way to ensure these records aren't closed until ALL the tasks are inactive?

 

I was trying a Business Rule but it didn't seem to be working. 

 

MBarrott_0-1721066465350.png

MBarrott_1-1721066501796.png

 

9 REPLIES 9

Zach Koch
Giga Sage
Giga Sage

Your BR you linked is missing the () in line 9, it should be if (taskGlid.hasNext())

Also your condition would only have this run on update of a record where active = false, if you want this to happen when Active Changes To false, you need to adjust your condition to reflect that.

 

 

If this information helped resolve your issue, please remember to mark response correct and thumbs up to help future community members on this information, thanks!

Hi @Zach Koch - changes have improved the functionality. Appreciate it. 

 

I'm seeing that the RITM record is still closing out, however. Stage is reverting to the previous but weirdly state is not reflecting the change - ultimately causing the record to become inactive. 

 

MBarrott_0-1721073195315.png

 

Zach Koch
Giga Sage
Giga Sage

Is there anything in your Flow or Workflow that is driving the RITM doing something with the state? Also, you said you had made adjustments, did you adjust the Condition of your BR?

 

 

If this information helped resolve your issue, please remember to mark response correct and thumbs up to help future community members on this information, thanks!

I feel like there must be something else working on the backend to update the REQ/RITM records I'm just not sure what. 

 

Likely an OOTB setup. Feel like it would be more optimal to nest the script changes there but I'm not sure if it's a flow or script doing so.