Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Align fake-join Rule to Allow Implicit Joins According to Best Practices #117

Open
philippfromme opened this issue Sep 21, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels
backlog Queued in backlog enhancement New feature or request rules Concerning existing or missing rules

Comments

@philippfromme
Copy link
Contributor

The current best practices allow for an implicit join right after a start event.

implicit-join

In order to reflect the best practices this should be allowed by the fake-join rule.

@philippfromme philippfromme added the enhancement New feature or request label Sep 21, 2023
@philippfromme philippfromme changed the title Align fake-join Rule to allow implicit joins according to best practices Align fake-join Rule to Allow Implicit Joins According to Best Practices Sep 21, 2023
@nikku nikku added the rules Concerning existing or missing rules label Sep 21, 2023
@nikku nikku added the backlog Queued in backlog label Sep 25, 2023 — with bpmn-io-tasks
@kddsultan
Copy link

@philippfromme, could you please send a reference where this is mentioned as best practice? Thank you!

@barmac
Copy link
Member

barmac commented Aug 19, 2024

It's in https://docs.camunda.io/docs/components/best-practices/modeling/creating-readable-process-models/#:~:text=We%20argue%20that%20a%20merging%20XOR%20gateway%20directly%20behind%20the%20start%20event%20decreases%20the%20readability

I disagree that the rule should always allow some form of implicit modeling. The rule could be configurable though to allow strict or lenient validation.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backlog Queued in backlog enhancement New feature or request rules Concerning existing or missing rules
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants