Breaking out of Scope

[AdamWilliams]

I was wondering if its possible to break out of a scope?

I have a number of steps which id like to place into a single scope [Scope 1], then if any step *fails*, id like to exit the current scope and run the next scope [Scope 2] (which which is configured to run only when the above scope fails, is skipped or timesout).

I thought I could do it by using Terminate-Failed, but this skips Scope 2 as well.

*Fail* here could either be, those determined by the flow (e.g. status code 400 from a http call) or by some user defined criteria within Scope 1 (e.g. "if value is equal to xxxx then Fail")

TIA

Adam

[Expiscornovus]

Hi @AdamWilliams,

Maybe you can use the configure run after option settings. Over there you can configure when the second scope should run. You can for instance set that one up that it only runs when the previous scope fails.

[Expiscornovus]

Hi @AdamWilliams,

Apologies, after reading your original post it looks like you are already using that configure run after setting, correct?

For additional checks you can probably use a condition action and look for instance at the statuscode of the result outputs of the different actions within your scope.

Below example gives back the statuscode of the first action within scope action.

result('Scope')[0]['outputs']['statusCode']

[AdamWilliams]

Hi @Expiscornovus 

Yes its already configured and so this works in the case where a failure is determined by the flow (e.g. status code 400 from a http call)

However (as far as I can tell) I cannot manually trigger a "Fail" for some other user defined condition e.g.

Essentially I want a "break" 🙂

Thanks Adam 

[AdamWilliams]

Ok, so in my reply to @Expiscornovus I figured I "could" trigger a failure generated by the flow.

By intentionally calling a http request which would give a 404, which in turn is handled by the flow as a failure.

As below

For an input "Yes" we get

And an input "No":

But the very fact I "could" do this, really doesn't I "should".

Any other "proper" suggestions 😄

Thanks

Adam

[Cam]

i would also like this.

i have the exact same scenario - i'm using a TRY CATCH FINALLY pattern, and i'm trying to self-generate error messages in the TRY block, which i want to be handled by the CATCH block.

@AdamWilliams did you find a way?

[AdamWilliams]

Hi @Cam,

Unfortunately reviewing my flow, it looks like I did not find a solution to this.

If you do happen to find something then please let me know !!

EDIT: Thinking about this I had an idea, though once again it's not the best.

You could place all processes of Scope1 that you would want to run after the Condition within the "IF yes" branch.

Therefore if the Condition is "if no" then nothing runs in Scope 1, and then continues into Scope2

Adam