- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
01-14-2019 07:09 AM
I have a workflow with a few (Wait x days) timers. When I'm testing changes to the workflow I don't want to actually wait that long for this step to complete. Is there any way I can force the context to move on to the next step?
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
01-14-2019 07:26 AM
In workflow timer activity, you can put code like
// Create a property e.g. with name as "nameOfCustomProperty" and put its value as //disable. when you move to PROD or next instance, change value to "enable"
if ( gs.getProperty("nameOfCustomProperty") == "disable") {
// put code here to wait for 2 secs atleast
}else{
// put code for time you want to wait here in reality and not for testing
}
Note: Please mark reply as correct / helpful if it answers your question

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
06-18-2021 07:07 AM
This solution was very helpful to my issue where I wanted to kick out change tasks early because the team updated their planned start date. The twist to this solution was that I had "nested" workflows running to find the timer task in.
In the primary change workflow, I found the linked workflow under "Workflow Contexts". Once I opened that workflow context, I could see the Workflow Executing Activities and get the sys_id from the scratchpad. Found that right away in the sys_trigger list and then changed the next action time.
Thanks!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
09-22-2022 01:10 PM
This is a great answer, much better than the accepted solution. It does exactly what was asked, rather than suggesting a workaround.
Helped me in the same situation, I just wanted to move a workflow context past a lengthy timer activity for testing. Thanks!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-09-2024 01:37 AM
I would prefer this solution honestly. Nothing wrong in the accepted solution - just that it would involve modifying production code (which ideally should always be avoided) which will then need to be peer reviewed before deployment. This one skips that step entirely.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
09-23-2022 12:07 AM
Thank you, glad you found it useful.