How to avoid duplicates when reuse models attached in two different app are imported in productive system

The idea is to test the whole process on a test environment and when you are happy, download .zip file of app and upload it to Live. We have multiple apps where reuse models are used , hence same models exists in two different app. Hence once we import both app into productive system , models with same key is created twice . Any idea how we can prevent to import duplicates even if it exists in two APPs.

I would like to know if there is any configuration that can be done in Productive system to prevent creation of duplicates but allow overwriting of same model.

The same is the case with decision tables and forms… it creates duplicates if the same model exists in two app.

No, that’s currently not supported with the Flowable Modeler. You’d need a check on the key on import and throw an exception (but that would need code changes).

Dear Joram,

I know that there is a procedure how to request such a feature to become a standard in Flowable. Could you tell us how to subject the development request?

Basically, duplicate keys should not be allowed and it should ask the user to skip or overwrite the respective model, form or decision table.


1 Like

We add new features to the open source project when there’s enough community demand. As this hasn’t been implemented yet, it means it hasn’t been crucial for most users. Furthermore: the open source UI applications come with no support.

As this is an open-source forum, we try very hard not to mix this with our enterprise products and support. The only thing I want to say here is that we do have commercial products where customers can influence the roadmap and/or get support with SLA’s.

I also saw you created starting a post with ‘we are frustrated’ for an open source project is not helpful. All the effort here and in the project is all done in open-source, free-to-use by the whole world (and often by spending free time).

Hi Joram,

the expression “we are frustrated” was actually proposed by Flowable Issue editor as standard text, so I thought to just use it. No bad intentions…

Apologies, I wasn’t aware of that.
I’ve changed it here: