AnsweredAssumed Answered

Problems with Activiti upgrade from Activiti 5.15 to Activiti 6

Question asked by mattia-be on Jan 3, 2018
Latest reply on Apr 19, 2018 by arturkozyrski

Good morning,

                   to upgrade, we followed the migration guide at the following link:

Including the part concerning compatibility with Activiti 5.


To date, we use a series of workflows that have sub-workflows within them.


After upgrading to Activiti 6, we encountered some issues and decided to run some tests.

Below I describe how much we have deduced:


There is a workflow that was started before the upgrade to Activiti 6.
After updating and after reloading all workflows with engine 6, I see the flag in the db, we have continued the workflow.
However, once you get to the sub-workflow, when you try to start it, the application goes into error with the following exception:

16:06:28,162 ERROR [org.activiti.engine.impl.interceptor.CommandContext] (http-/ Error while closing command context: org.activiti.engine.ActivitiException: couldn't execute activity <callActivity id="callactivity4" ...>: org.activiti.engine.impl.persistence.entity.ProcessDefinitionEntityImpl cannot be cast to org.activiti5.engine.impl.persistence.entity.ProcessDefinitionEntity
at org.activiti.compatibility.DefaultActiviti5CompatibilityHandler.handleActivitiException( [activiti5-compatibility-6.0.0.jar:]
at org.activiti.compatibility.DefaultActiviti5CompatibilityHandler.completeTask( [activiti5-compatibility-6.0.0.jar:]
at org.activiti.engine.impl.cmd.CompleteTaskCmd.execute( [activiti-engine-6.0.0.jar:6.0.0]
at org.activiti.engine.impl.cmd.CompleteTaskCmd.execute( [activiti-engine-6.0.0.jar:6.0.0]
at org.activiti.engine.impl.cmd.NeedsActiveTaskCmd.execute( [activiti-engine-6.0.0.jar:6.0.0]
at org.activiti.engine.impl.interceptor.CommandInvoker$ [activiti-engine-6.0.0.jar:6.0.0]
at org.activiti.engine.impl.interceptor.CommandInvoker.executeOperation( [activiti-engine-6.0.0.jar:6.0.0]
at org.activiti.engine.impl.interceptor.CommandInvoker.executeOperations( [activiti-engine-6.0.0.jar:6.0.0]
at org.activiti.engine.impl.interceptor.CommandInvoker.execute( [activiti-engine-6.0.0.jar:6.0.0]
at org.activiti.engine.impl.interceptor.TransactionContextInterceptor.execute( [activiti-engine-6.0.0.jar:6.0.0]
at org.activiti.engine.impl.interceptor.CommandContextInterceptor.execute( [activiti-engine-6.0.0.jar:6.0.0]
at org.activiti.spring.SpringTransactionInterceptor$1.doInTransaction( [activiti-spring-6.0.0.jar:6.0.0]
at [spring-tx-3.2.7.RELEASE.jar:3.2.7.RELEASE]
at org.activiti.spring.SpringTransactionInterceptor.execute( [activiti-spring-6.0.0.jar:6.0.0]
at org.activiti.engine.impl.interceptor.LogInterceptor.execute( [activiti-engine-6.0.0.jar:6.0.0]
at org.activiti.engine.impl.cfg.CommandExecutorImpl.execute( [activiti-engine-6.0.0.jar:6.0.0]
at org.activiti.engine.impl.cfg.CommandExecutorImpl.execute( [activiti-engine-6.0.0.jar:6.0.0]
at org.activiti.engine.impl.TaskServiceImpl.complete( [activiti-engine-6.0.0.jar:6.0.0]



We decided to load only the sub-workflow with the Activiti Engine 5 mode, as described in the documentation:

deploymentProperty(DeploymentProperties.DEPLOY_AS_ACTIVITI5_PROCESS_DEFINITION, Boolean.TRUE


As regards the workflow started before the update to activiti 6, the start of the sub-workflow occurred without errors.

However, having started a new instance of the same workflow, when it arrives at the sub-workflow and tries to start it, it goes into error with the following exception:

Error while closing command context: org.activiti.engine.ActivitiException: No start element found for process definition:Pubblicazione:10:198564 --> Where Pubblicazione is sub-workflow name (defined into activiti.act_re_procdef table)


To solve the problem and still be able to use the entire workflow system, we reloaded all workflows with activiti5, 

deploymentProperty(DeploymentProperties.DEPLOY_AS_ACTIVITI5_PROCESS_DEFINITION, Boolean.TRUE, so that both the new and the old workflows are able to perform the sub-workflows, complete all the tasks and finish.

From our point of view it seems a compatibility bug.
We hope to have been useful and to have helped you to identify and solve the problem.
I hope you can look into the matter and provide us with support in this regard.


Thanks in advance