Execute for every result row not work

[ofabioalves]

I'm having trouble sending parameters in the execute for every result row.

It's not passing the fields from the copy results of the previous pipeline into the one I'm executing.

This problem started when migrating from version 2.14 to 2.16.

[sramazzina]

@ofabioalves try to uncheck the flag Pass parameter values to subpipeline and let me know please. Let me attach a working example to you for your reference
test_pipeline_action.zip

[ofabioalves]

Rest assured, I did this test myself; I'm not a beginner user on Hop, but here's the screenshot as requested.

[ofabioalves]

Here's an example using your code!

[ofabioalves]

Now in 2.14 version

[ofabioalves]

It's in the description, but just for the record, this problem is only occurring in version 2.16; it's working in version 2.14!

[ofabioalves]

@hansva @mattcasters @bamaer

[mattcasters]

I'm a bit annoyed that something like this would break despite the integration tests we have running every night. That being said, I would still recommend to avoid all this pain and simply loop with a pipeline: https://hop.apache.org//manual/latest/how-to-guides/loops-in-apache-hop.html
But in general, if you could make a reproduction sample, as simple as possible with no dependencies, and attach it to an issue, we can look at it.

[ofabioalves]

The example that sramazzina posted above works perfectly and shows the same result as mine.

[ofabioalves]

@ofabioalves try to uncheck the flag Pass parameter values to subpipeline and let me know please. Let me attach a working example to you for your reference test_pipeline_action.zip

[ofabioalves]

Unfortunately, I had to revert to version 2.14, which was already in production, because we have many ETLs that use this type of loop usage for API pagination, date ranges, and multiple files.

[mattcasters]

Out of principle I refuse to file this bug report for you. I do hope you understand. Just link to it here.

[ofabioalves]

No problem, I preferred to post here first thinking I had done something wrong, and now with permission I will open a ticket, since it really is a bug.

[bamaer]

There's no need to ask or get permission to open a bug or any other type of ticket. The worst thing that could happen is that it gets closed.

[ofabioalves]

I've already opened the issue: #6109

[ofabioalves]

There's no need to ask or get permission to open a bug or any other type of ticket. The worst thing that could happen is that it gets closed.

I didn't express myself well; I prefer to be sure here in the discussions that it was an error before opening a ticket, avoiding unnecessary trips to that screen!

[pietrobaricco]

Chiming in to say that I've encountered an issue which is probably related: In workflows, simple parameters passing between steps, using the stream, no longer works.
Reverting to 2.15 works again.
Brings back memories of PDI 9.3 and 9.4, 8 vs 9...

[hansva]

Can you check if it is still present in 2.17 or provide a reproduction path, as this ticket has been marked as resolved for 2.17?

We try to encourage everyone to help test our releases to avoid these types of issues slipping through the cracks. We mainly rely on the unit tests that have been created for parameters. The list can be found here. We try to encourage everyone to check what we test and provide extra tests.

[sramazzina]

@pietrobaricco It was solved in 2.17.

[pietrobaricco]

Fixed indeed in 2.17. Didn't try it because I always build using the latest release, which is 2.16