Conditional state machine transition in JS Workflow

Hi, thank you for creating the feature request.

I don't really see what you are talking about the `if` constructions. How can they be used here ?

Would you mind elaborating on this a bit?

In case you want a piece of code that would be called on any issue change, creating an onChange rule will do the trick.

If you what some logic executed when an issue is in a certain state, then you can declare a property of a state called onEnter. For more details see the documentation: https://www.jetbrains.com/help/youtrack/standalone/2017.2/v1-Issue.html (the stateMachine section).

Grecko,

Basically you can put all the conditions you need inside `if`s or `check`s (previously `assert`s):

on start[<condition>] do {
  // whatever
} transit to Timer’s running
// ->
targetState: 'Timer's running'
action: function(ctx) {
  workflow.check(<condition>, 'Condition is not met, can't transit!')
  // whatever
}
// OR
targetState: 'Timer's running'
action: function(ctx) {
  if (<condition>) {
    // whatever
  } else {
    workflow.check(false, 'Condition is not met, can't transit!')
  }
}

I want to conditionally disable some state transitions in a state machine workflow.

I could have a workaround and do that in the `onEnter` function of the target state with an assert, but that's not exactly the same behaviour. I might want to have different conditions based on the source state.

This is also related to https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/JT-12684 if that one get implemented one day.

Thank you Mariya for pointing me to `action`, I wasn't able to find it in the documentation.

This kinda resolves my issue, even though waiting for a transition to throw an error when trying to execute it rather than preventing its execution beforehand feels dirty.

I also feel like having a condition property (maybe just a single function not an array of objects like I suggested) is necessary if you ever want to implement JT-12684.

Thank you all for your help, I guess this is now more a feature suggestion than an actual problem ;)

Thank you, I've marked the request that was created based on this thread as a duplicate of JT-12684.