Runner Macro reports failure, but seems to have run successfully?

[warrencowan]

Hi all,

I'm running a chain of 5 conditional runner macros in a workflow, however number 4 reports failure, thus does not trigger the 5th runner.

However the workflows run fine outside of the runner, and even though the runner reports failure, the data outputs in the reported failed 4th workflow are being updated, indicating that the 4th workflow must have run successfully.

I've tried to inspect and compare the settings of the successful and failed workflows in the runner to see what could be so different but I'm not seeing anything jump out at me in the settings / meta data etc.

Any fixes or troubleshooting advice much appreciated.

many thnx in advance

dubya

some vague extra detail jic:

each workflow in the runner chain outputs to a combination of Alteryx and SQL DB's.

each is dependent on an output in the previous in some way.

no macros in the reported failed workflow.

all workflows have the limit conversion errors as checked, max 10 per loc. (the default, i think)

on previewing the failure tab, the failed row reports '1' in the error column.

Log column is truncated in the preview so no available clues there, and I don't know how to further interrogate that.

[warrencowan · Accepted solution]

OK, so for what it's worth I managed to solve this one myself, so am just posting my feedback in case anyone else runs into the same.

Turns out there was a sampling tool left in the workflow, that was leftover from previous testing. I left it in just in case I needed to reconnect it for another round of testing.

Whilst it had no impact on the completion of the workflow, the fact that there was an unconnected block created an error message in the log all the same.

Deleting the block from the workflow allowed the workflow to run free of any reported error, and then ran and reported successfully in the runner. Seems this reported error was enough to cause the conditional runner macro to report a failure of the workflow, even though it had run through to its intended completion.

Lesson learned!

Ensure that workflows are error free, even if they're not critical.

Delete or deactivate loose unconnected tools.

and thanks to @MarqueeCrew all the same, for providing such awesome functionality in the first place. It's certainly not their fault that it isn't noob proof. 

[JeremeyA]

Bumping this....I am running into the same issue.  I have a workflow that runs fine on its own, and has no disconnected tools.  The runner macro reports error, even though the E-mail event from the underlying workflow gets sent and confirms it's running with 0 errors.

Any ideas?

[iamfainny]

@JeremeyA any luck I am having a similar issue?

[warrencowan]

Hi guys, the runners do have some quirks and seem more sensitive to some minor inconsequential flaws in a workflow. I haven't found a silver bullet yet but I have managed to work out how to troubleshoot them.

Drag on the log analyser tool (you should have got it when you downloaded the crew macro pack) and connect it the failure output stub of your runners, and then connect a browse tool to the log analyser output.

Youll get a detailed status and report of each operation in the flow. Look for errors and failures in this list. You can also see if everything still loaded and ran as planned, even if an error was triggered that reported a false failure.

The clues should be there and you should be to iron out whatever obscure, unplanned or schoolboy error was giving you the grief.

Let me know if you succeed. And sorry for missing the posts.

[daviskb]

My silly error occurred when I typed in the name of the workflow to run instead of selecting it from the directory.  Apparently I had some invalid character in the workflow name.  The log parser showed me that the conditional runner couldn't find the workflow to run!  

[dimsandwich]

Just for added value, I took the tip to hit browser on the log parser but still no errors but it did highlight that the SQL I was using in the workflow input tool contained a lot of commented out sections using the t-sql /* blah blah */ notation.

Took those out and hey presto the runner no longer reported a failure.

Thanks to all the previous posters for the clues.

[maxlau11]

Hi,

My issue was that the after run email body was too long. The workflow was successful but the email was missing some lines. The Crew Macro shows it as a failure but this failure is not capture in the workflow logs.

Max