Sorry, to little info from my side. If you *do* end the process in the unit test because you want to *know* it has ended, the teardown throws an exception. And I agree that it is much easier for us to use, but as you already mention, the 'confusion' kicks in very often. Also many people do not know the new assertions. Maybe the teardown should check if it is still running and do the sleep itself until it checks that the process has ended or sleeps 10 seconds and then kill it anyway (but maybe also delete running jobs etc) Off Topic: so maybe a very little amount of data could be left in the execution table e.g. the process instance id and the fact that it has ended or whatever. This one record does not really clutter the db does it? Or in some command check if there is a process id in the history table if the execution returns null, more explicit warnings can be thrown then. Tom changed the getVariable to log a message that there is no process instance but there is not process instance ACTIVE anymore. Could also be kind of confusing. And instead of documenting all this, it is probably easier to log it in a nicer way. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4251541#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...