For this test I set up two jobs:

Job 1:
A) Append write "A" to file
B) Start "Job 2"

Job 2:
A) Append write "B" to file
B) Wait 5 secs
C) Start "Job 1"

This leads me to two points:

A) What concerns me is that when I start Job 1 the iterative proces will exit after a random number of runs. This I can see by looking the written file, which will end up with a different counts of AB's.
Neither jobs end with a "Failed", but simply stops. It sounds like a bug.

B) What would be nice, would be an addition to the "Start Job" and "Start Task" tasks; an option to "Stop (current) job and run specified Job" checkbox. Currently this is obly possible from the tasks Error tab.

Best regards,
A loyal fan,
René

A: I don't know which version you are running but in later version you are running right now? But in later versions you are able to run B synchrously instead of just ansynchrously as in previous versions.

B: Please add that as a separate Feature request in that forum

---

A: I tried to add that in the subject of this post. 🙂 I run version 5.6.7.

By running synchrounous the jobs won't run iteratively (meaning the 3rd task in Job 2 is basically ignored, since Job 1 is still running). Thus meaning that each job is only run once.
But basically I don't like the tasks not acting as true procedural tasks, and are giving different output every time they are run.

I hope I make sense. :-)

B: I will post this in Feature requests.

In your case you might want to uncheck the synchronous option. Then Job 1 will be released right a way. Or, you just use the put "job in queue option".

---

I am not sure I am being very clear.
When the jobs are run asynchronous, then you would think the two jobs would run iteratively forever and ever...and ever. But - instead they stop running after some random iteration, usually around 4-8 iterations.

The bug is that the number of iterations varies every time the job is run.

Even though it was not built that way I am sure the problem is, some time, that the other Job is of status Running which stops the loop. You just probably have to disable this check.

---

Even after using VisualCron for more than 3 years, I still learn of new ways of combining stuff. Thanks for your replies. :)