Are many 140.X workflows intentionally not processing any Events?

[makortel]

In #44413 it was noticed that at least workflows 140.X where X is 004, 006, 007, 008, 009, 011, 021 do not process any Events. While this was great to uncover the problem investigated in #44413, a question remains if that was intentional, or if these workflows were intended to process Events?

[makortel]

assign pdmv

[cmsbuild]

New categories assigned: pdmv

@AdrianoDee,@sunilUIET,@miquork you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks

[cmsbuild]

cms-bot internal usage

[cmsbuild]

A new Issue was created by @makortel.

@smuzaffar, @makortel, @Dr15Jones, @antoniovilela, @rappoccio, @sextonkennedy can you please review it and eventually sign/assign? Thanks.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[AdrianoDee]

Hi Matti, I really doubt this was intentional at the time of their introduction. So:

1. I'm having a look to have them better defined;
2. given the accidental usefulness of this kind of wfs would anyway makes sense to keep one of them with the explicit intention to check these unusual conditions? This time intentionally.

[makortel]

2. given the accidental usefulness of this kind of wfs would anyway makes sense to keep one of them with the explicit intention to check these unusual conditions? This time intentionally.

I think keeping one such "no events" workflow would indeed be useful.