workflow comments doesn't show up in the Workflow history

Question

We have a interesting issue related to the workflow comments. We are using lion bridge workflow for the items. When the workflow command is executed and comment box is filled with comments. Data is saved in the SQL Db but the Key is stored as "comment" While retrieving the workflow history to view the comments, It is trying to fetch from the key "Comments" hence no comments are shown. if I update the data in the SQL column to "Comments" it comes up in the History. Does anyone know what could be the issue or from where is the comment box save picking up the value for the "Key" Attached the screenshot below which shows the json values in the SQL.

Answer 1

Sitecore's workflow uses /sitecore/templates/System/Workflow/Standard Comment Template/Comment/Comments field to store the key value and when display it in workflow history it uses below config from Sitecore.config file -

<getWorkflowCommentsDisplay help="Processors must accept PipelineArgs of type Sitecore.Pipelines.GetWorkflowCommentsDisplay.GetWorkflowCommentsDisplayArgs">
 <processor type="Sitecore.Pipelines.GetWorkflowCommentsDisplay.ExtractFields, 
  Sitecore.Kernel" singleInstance="false">
 <Fields hint="list:AddField">
 <Comments>Comments</Comments>
   </Fields>
   </processor>
</getWorkflowCommentsDisplay>

Ideally this field name /sitecore/templates/System/Workflow/Standard Comment Template/Comment/Comments and this value <Comments>Comments</Comments> in config should be same. To fix this you can do any of the below two options -

• Change the config value to comment as you already have comments added in the table, no major impact but need to take care during the upgrade as it is not OOTB Sitecore value.
• Update the template field value to Comments but you also need to run SQL command to fix this for already added comments which are showing comment as key.

Answer 2

LionBridge responded "Dev team confirmed that this issue is a bug in the connector and they are going to fix it in a future release. "

But as a workaround we can use the Solution recommended by @Mahendra