Update bpmn-coverage.md

[aleksander-dytko]

We support Data Object and Data Store in Modeler + for execution. This needs to be reflected in bpmn-coverage

Description

When should this change go live?

• This is a bug fix, security concern, or something that needs urgent release support.
• This is already available but undocumented and should be released within a week.
• This on a specific schedule and the assignee will coordinate a release with the DevEx team. (apply hold label or convert to draft PR)
• This is part of a scheduled alpha or minor. (apply alpha or minor label)
• There is no urgency with this change and can be released at any time.

PR Checklist

• My changes are for an already released minor and are in /versioned_docs directory.
• My changes are for the next minor and are in /docs directory (aka /next/).

• My changes require an Engineering review, and I've assigned the Engineering DRI or delegate.
• My changes require a technical writer review, and I've assigned @camunda/tech-writers as a reviewer.

[github-actions]

👋 🤖 🤔 Hello, @christinaausley! Did you make your changes in all the right places?

These files were changed only in docs/. You might want to duplicate these changes in versioned_docs/version-8.6/.

• docs/components/modeler/bpmn/bpmn-coverage.md

You may have done this intentionally, but we wanted to point it out in case you didn't. You can read more about the versioning within our docs in our documentation guidelines.

[korthout]

While we allow processes with DataObject and DataStore, we don't really support these BPMN concepts. We simply don't use them in the execution.

• Deploy process with data object and data store camunda#10845

I'm not confident in saying that we provide coverage for these concepts. I believe this would require using DataInput and DataOutput for Activities like Service Tasks. Instead, we just don't break when BPMN models contain DataObject and DataStore, but they are not actively used in the execution of the model.

IMO, we should discuss this with other BPMN experts before merging.

[aleksander-dytko]

@korthout thanks for sharing your opinion.

@saig0 @nikku could you support us here to define what would be needed so that we can claim we support Data store and data object elements?

[nikku]

@saig0 @nikku could you support us here to define what would be needed so that we can claim we support Data store and data object elements?

TLDR: Data stores, input and output have always been modeling only from Camunda's perspective, in C8 and C7. We don't support any of the "data features" beyond modeling (for documentation purposes) that the BPMN standard defines.

---

BPMN implements data on two layers:

• Visual, i.e. data stores and data objects, documentation only
• For execution (+visual) using IO mappings (data input, and data output)

The later one is a direct competition to our own data mappings (both C7 and C8).

An answer to our users could be to mark them as supported (*) with the disclaimer that this includes "modeling only/for documentation" and that we do not support IO-mappings as defined in the BPMN standard.

---

From the spec:

[christinaausley]

Let me know when you're ready for final review @aleksander-dytko 👍

[akeller]

@aleksander-dytko - nudging you on this docs PR.

[christinaausley]

@aleksander-dytko Ready for final review here? 😄

[akeller]

@aleksander-dytko what's the status of this PR?

[christinaausley]

Followed up with Aleksander on Slack and I'm going to help refactor this PR to include Nico’s suggestion (disclaimer for modeling only).

[christinaausley]

@aleksander-dytko I've incorporated a disclaimer for DataObject and DataStore -- if this looks good to you, I will backport.

[nikku]

We could also frame this as "we don't support BPMN standard IO mappings (but of course allow you to map IO (in our very simple, CAmunda style) [link to our documentation for that]". This may read as "We do not support data features".

[christinaausley]

How about "DataObjectandDataStore`, like other BPMN standard IO mappings, are supported by Camunda for modeling purposes only."? We could leave out "Camunda does not support any additional data features the BPMN standard defines."

[christinaausley]

Whoops I think we forgot about this @nikku -- WDYT here? CC @aleksander-dytko

[nikku]

We could leave out "Camunda does not support any additional data features the BPMN standard defines."

Yea, we could leave it out, or link to our own support for I/O. Probably easiest to leave it out.

[christinaausley]

@nikku This is ready for final review 👍

@aleksander-dytko Should this be backported?

[christinaausley]

I am going to go ahead and merge this. If needed, can backport in a separate PR. CC @aleksander-dytko as I know he is OOO.

resolved in commit