Skip to main content

I have an automation which has a few workbenches which are SQLExectutors that gather parameters and write to automation writers.  There are then workbenches which consume these parameters and use them for processing..  In the automation setup I assign the parameters to the incoming attributes.  This process runs weekly.  It runs successfully but occasionally it starts failing, when I go into the automation it is failing because these parameters have reverted to their default values. I have to re-assign them back to attribute values.  

How is this happening by itself? This process isn’t being touched by anyone else and will run successfully for months. This is in FME Flow 2023.2.1

Are you sure the workspace hasn’t been edited and republished?


I don’t think so, that process is static and in production, but absent any other explanations, I guess maybe it could have been.


I am having the same issue in Flow 2023.2.1 where parameters are resetting to workbench settings. Is there a way to lock the automation?


Not to my knowledge. Hitting start should be the ‘lock’ mechanism. In newer versions, like 2024.2.3 I noticed you know have a little refresh icon to update the parameters (to their defaults)….

run workspace parameters in an Automation (2024.2.3)

 


Hello , 
 

Could you please confirm when the automation was last edited using the /automations/{id} endpoint in v4 ?


@merlinegeorge not sure what you mean but the automation URL is 

 

https://aidp-dev-nsw-spatial-services.fmecloud.com/fmeserver/automations/85a571eb-e13b-432c-8837-232577e26ffc


I believe this version of Flow hosted = Version: 2023.2 (23778)


@j.botterill yes correct 2023.2.1


Hello ,

This API call should give us the last updated value for the problem automation. This is similar to an ongoing issue-  parameters being reset to the default values in the automation before hitting the Start automation button after editing/viewing/stopping an automation. So the last updated value looks relevant.  Could you please submit a case for further analysis ?

 


Reply