I would like to be able to validate bpmn diagrams. There seems to be a switch for diagram validation that is switched off by default: https://app.camunda.com/jira/browse/CAM-1983. Where can I find this switch? Or is validation of a diagram not possible?
The diagrams you model are structurally valid by definition. Read the detailed answer below.
What exactly would you like to do?
- Validate diagrams at design or run time?
- Validate execution related properties or BPMN 2.0 XML compliance?
Designtime. So on press of the button “download diagram” get error-info. It’s about BPMN 2.0 XML compliance. So if I have f.e. an endevent only with nothing else in a diagram, or only a servicetask with no in- or output, design-time, I would like a user to get some info when he tries to download the xml.
You’d like to validate whether the process is executable by a process engine?
A service Task alone is valid BPMN (at least inside sub-processes).
Excuse me, I don’t know all bpmn2.0 rules. But no, the only functionality that I would like to have client-side concerning validation is compliance to bpmn2.0. Nothing vendor-specific, althought it would be nice to be able to add vendor-specific rules in a userfriendly way yourself. I thought, based on the link in my first mail, that this maybe was implemented already. A special button for diagram validation would be nice, so a save/download button without validation - also for saving work without validation messages while the diagram is not complete yet - and a validate button to see if the diagram is bpmn2.0 compliant.
Our libraries and the tools built upon them are quite different from most others you see in the market: We disallow “invalid” constructs to be modeled any time. And because the tools are backed up by the respective standards meta-model we are very sure about what is allowed and what is not.
Because of that, whatever you export will always be valid BPMN 2.0 (everything else is a bug that needs to be fixed). So technically, you do not need the validation button you mention, even though you may be used to it from other modeling tools .
Disclaimer: Obviously there is a lot of things you can validate on top of structural BPMN 2.0 compliantness. As I understand you, that is not what you are asking for.
That is good to hear, thank you!