This feature is really necessary. More or less, when do you expect the changes to be merged into main?

This feature is really necessary.

Please provide us with a little bit more context. Why is this featurereally necessary?

Hi Nikku.
I'm sorry, I may not have been very clear.
I meant the functionality illustrated by Philipp at the beginning of PR, that is the use, according to the BPMN 2.0 standard, of the tag "DataInputAssociation" and "DataOutputAssociation".
Since the PR has not yet been merged into the master, I wondered if there was a closing date for this PR.
If I understand your question correctly.
Bye.

Please provide us with a little bit more context. Why is this featurereally necessary?

I'm askingwhy the feature is important for you and notwhat. An answer to that question helps us to better evaluate the demand.

I'm askingwhy the feature is important for you and notwhat. An answer to that question helps us to better evaluate the demand.

Hi Nikku.

If I understand the purpose of Philipp's PR, this feature is important because it would allow you to manage the associations between data and tasks through theioSpecification tag and itsdataInput /dataOutput as it should be.
For a better explanation, let's consider the following trivial diagram:

Currently the editor produces, fortask 1, the following XML:

<bpmn:task name="Task"> <bpmn:incoming>SequenceFlow_0iu53jb</bpmn:incoming> <bpmn:outgoing>SequenceFlow_0mz7m8s</bpmn:outgoing> <bpmn:property name="__targetRef_placeholder" /> <bpmn:dataInputAssociation> <bpmn:sourceRef>DataObjectReference_1</bpmn:sourceRef> <bpmn:targetRef>Property_05b30xr</bpmn:targetRef> </bpmn:dataInputAssociation> </bpmn:task>

As you can see, the editor created aproperty tag instead of using adataInput tag within aioSpecification tag.
In my opinion, it would be better to use adataInput because, logically, the data converge as input data within the task to undergo some processing.

If I understood correctly, and I'm not wrong, it seems to me that the PR submitted by Philippe should solve this case too.

Bye.

That still doesn't answer the question. Obviously this PR would ensure compatibility with the BPMN 2.0 specification. The question is: What is your use case that requires this compatibility? What are you trying to do?

Hi, Philipp.
From the fact that you still have not understood what I meant by my last post, I am convinced that I have not understood the aims of this PR.
Please ignore my previous posts.
When I have more time, in the future, I will create a special Issue and there I will explain well what, in my opinion, it would be useful to implement to adhere more to the BPMN 2.0 standard with regard to tasks and the association with data objects.

That still doesn't answer the question. Obviously this PR would ensure compatibility with the BPMN 2.0 specification. The question is: What is your use case that requires this compatibility? What are you trying to do?

When I have more time, in the future, I will create a special Issue and there I will explain well what, in my opinion, it would be useful to implement to adhere more to the BPMN 2.0 standard with regard to tasks and the association with data objects.

We second your opinion and may some day maybe improve handling of IO mappings in the future.