Create Ad-Hoc SubProcess via create/replace menu

[barmac]

Problem you would like to solve

I just tried out the properties panel solution, and found the way to create an ad-hoc subprocess super cumbersome. It is a separate type of an element. Why do we create it via modifiers? Why can't I find it in the create/replace menu?

I can create a transaction though:

Proposed solution

• Add ad-hoc subprocess to the list of elements (with proper icon/icons)
• Remove ~ symbol from modifiers

Alternatives considered

Keep the ~ modifier.

Additional context

Related to #4739

[jarekdanielak]

Do we keep the ~ in the UI as an indicator of an ad-hoc subprocess or we make it look different somehow else?

cc. @lmbateman

[nikku]

Do we keep the ~ in the UI as an indicator of an ad-hoc subprocess or we make it look different somehow else?

We need to keep it on the UI, I'd be fine to have same sub-process and ad-hoc sub process icon.

[barmac]

Remove ~ symbol from modifiers

It's about this modifier:

[barmac]

Do we keep the ~ in the UI as an indicator of an ad-hoc subprocess or we make it look different somehow else?

cc. @lmbateman

The ~ has to stay. This is required by the BPMN specification.

[lmbateman]

So, just to clarify

• We're keeping the ~ in the on-canvas element, per BPMN standard
• We're removing the ~ from the Create element menu, and explicitly adding subprocesses to the Sub-processes list

If correct, that sounds good to me.

[nikku]

Create element menu

From the replace menu, we don't allow toggling from there anymore, but encourage explicit changing from sub-process => ad-hoc sub-process, as we encourage from sub-process to event-sub-process or transaction (and vice versa).

[jarekdanielak]

Do we want ad-hoc subprocess options in the replace/append menu for a general task or only for a subprocess? So similar to Transaction and Start event subprocess, you'd have to go through a regular subprocess to get to ad-hoc option.

I vote not to clutter the general replace menu too much and make it accessible after changing to a subprocess only.

So no this:

[jarekdanielak]

After a discussion with @barmac, these are all the ways to get to a ad-hoc subprocess.

Notice we don't offer an option to go directly from an expanded subprocess to a collapsed ad-hoc subprocess and vice versa. This is due to a implementation quirk in BpmnReplace that is capable of either replacing an element or toggling its collapse.

[nikku]

Notice we don't offer an option to go directly from an expanded subprocess to a collapsed ad-hoc subprocess and vice versa.

I'd also argue that this is rarely, if ever your intend as a user. Why would the type change, but also the visibility of contents (at the same time)?

[barmac]

Notice we don't offer an option to go directly from an expanded subprocess to a collapsed ad-hoc subprocess and vice versa.

I'd also argue that this is rarely, if ever your intend as a user. Why would the type change, but also the visibility of contents (at the same time)?

Totally. This was also why we decided against additional work to support this case.

[jarekdanielak]

Fixed upstream in bpmn-js v18.2.0

[philippfromme]

Closed via #4810.