What this service solves
Two automation platforms can expose similarly named triggers and actions while behaving differently around timing, data types, retries, or authentication. A migration starts by identifying the behavior the business depends on and checking whether the destination can reproduce it. That evidence guides the rebuild and the decision about when the process is ready to switch.
What you get
Migrated workflow group
The agreed behavior rebuilt on the destination, with representative cases comparing business outcomes against the source.
Cutover and rollback plan
A sequence for transferring triggers, checking the first destination runs, and returning to the source if an agreed validation condition fails.
What’s included
Inventory dependencies
Inventory triggers, actions, credentials ownership, data mappings, schedules, and dependencies shared across the related flows.
Rebuild the agreed workflow behavior on the destination platform
Rebuild the required behavior and identify where a destination connector needs a different configuration to produce equivalent output.
Compare results and plan rollback
Compare representative inputs and exceptions across both platforms. Agree who can pause processing and when a rollback is appropriate.
How implementation works
Audit platform parity
Check connector and action parity against actual source configurations and the capabilities available in the destination workspace.
Rebuild and compare
Rebuild and compare outputs using approved test data, with attention to duplicates, date handling, and error routes where relevant.
Switch and verify
Switch and verify under the agreed plan once parity is demonstrated and the cutover owner is ready.
Technical considerations
- Parity at the business boundary
- Check destination outputs and decisions against representative source runs. Compare record identifiers, dates, and error paths where they affect downstream work. Equivalent business behavior can use a different sequence of platform actions.
- In-flight work
- The cutover plan identifies which platform owns new events during the handoff and what happens to work already in a queue. Use the observed trigger behavior and agreed stop conditions to decide how to check for missed or duplicate processing.
Systems, inputs & prerequisites
Source workflows, authorized destination workspace, test data, and cutover ownership.
- Share source workflows, an authorized destination workspace, and representative test data for normal and failed processing.
- Name the owner of the cutover, the people who can manage access and triggers, and any operational periods that constrain the switch.
Starting scope & pricing
Base scope
Scoping starts with one related flow group. Connector parity and cutover constraints determine price.
Illustrative workflow
Sample input
Run the same approved sample through the two platforms.
Compare runs
Check field values, skipped records, and the error path.
Switch route
Enable the agreed destination trigger once the results meet the parity checks.
Validation & handover
- Verify the agreed connector actions and required permissions in the destination workspace before treating them as available for the move.
- Review the parity evidence for ordinary items and relevant exception paths. Record any gap and the decision about whether it affects cutover.
- Confirm the cutover owner, the first-run checks, and the condition that calls for rollback. Record who can restore the source route and verify the result.
Limitations & possible extras
Limitations
Connector parity and cutover constraints determine the engagement scope. Parallel subscriptions, custom replacements, backfill, and complex cutover windows may need separate agreement.
Connector and action parity must be proven before switching a live dependency.
Possible extras
Parallel subscriptions, custom replacements, backfill, or complex cutover windows.
Questions about this service
When should the source trigger be paused?
The cutover plan sets the order of the trigger handoff and identifies any in-flight work. The cutover owner checks the agreed conditions before enabling the destination and uses the rollback plan if verification fails.
What if the destination platform lacks an action we depend on?
The parity review records which behavior is affected and evaluates a supported alternative if one is available. The switch depends on that behavior being accepted and verified, or on an agreed revision to scope.
How do you compare outputs without affecting live records?
Use authorized test data and destinations agreed for the comparison. Include an ordinary input and representative exceptions, then compare the outputs that matter to the business process.
Can the migration include all historical records?
Historical backfill is a separate scope item. It depends on retention, available exports, destination limits, and how historical entries are distinguished from current work.