Clovertech

GT1 segmenet not be copied to outbound message

› Clovertech Forums › Read Only Archives › Cloverleaf › Cloverleaf › GT1 segmenet not be copied to outbound message

  • Creator
    Topic
  • August 28, 2009 at 3:59 pm #51156
    Shaun Beckman
    Participant

      We are on v5.5 rev 1.

      We have an inbound 2.3 variant that has all but the MSH and PID segments as optional. The outbound variant has the MSH, PID and PD1 segments as required, the others are optional. We are using Pathcopies for the MSH, EVN, PID and GT1 segments (iterating on GT1). The PD1 segment is comprised of a copy of PID3 to PD1_3. When running the inbound message through the testing tool, which contains a GT1 segment, we do not get the GT1 segment. It stops at the PD1 segment. Any idea why this is occurring?

      Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

      Inbound 2.3 Variant

      MSH

      [EVN]

      PID

      [NTE]

      [PD1]

      [{NK1}]

      [PV1]

      [PV2]

      [{OBX}]

      [{AL1}]

      [{DG1}]

      [{GT1}]

      OUTBOUND 2.3 VARIANT

      MSH

      [EVN]

      PID

      PD1

      [{GT1}]

    • Creator
      Topic
    Viewing 8 reply threads
    • Author
      Replies
      • August 28, 2009 at 4:12 pm #68973
        Jim Kosloskey
        Participant

          Shaun,

          Is it the Xlate testing tool you are using?

          If so, are you getting any mis-match messages or any other errors?

          If it is the HL/7 tester, then the inbound message probably won’t map correctly to the outbound variant.

          Also make sure your basis is correct for your GT1 iteration (most ITERATION issues are due to an incorrect basis) and make sure you are using the correct address pathing for your outbound GT1 destination fields, etc.

          email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 29+ years Cloverleaf, 59 years IT - old fart.

        • August 28, 2009 at 4:20 pm #68974
          Shaun Beckman
          Participant

            Jim,

            I’m using the xlate testing tool, and I am receiving no error messages.

            The basis for the GT1 iteration appears correct.

            Type:  segment

            Basis: 0(0).GT1

            Variable: %s1

            I have even tried removing the pathcopy for the GT1 segment and attempted to copy just a few fields, but the output still stops with the PD1 segment.

          • August 28, 2009 at 5:53 pm #68975
            Shaun Beckman
            Participant

              I changed the inbound variant from 2.3 to 2.2, and now I receive the following message in the testing tool when testing the xlate.

              The # 3 segment encountered ‘GT1’ is out of order for message type ‘ADT_A04’.  Segment ignored.

              The GT1 segment is not the #3 segment in the inbound message.

              Any ideas?

            • August 28, 2009 at 6:49 pm #68976
              Jim Kosloskey
              Participant

                Shaun,

                Go back to using 2.3 for your inbound.

                Then show me your COPY Action for one of the GT1 fields.

                email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 29+ years Cloverleaf, 59 years IT - old fart.

              • August 28, 2009 at 7:01 pm #68977
                Shaun Beckman
                Participant

                  I changed the variant back to 2.3.

                  { { OP ITERATE }

                     { BASIS 0(0).GT1 }

                     { VAR %s1 }

                     { TYPE segment }

                     { BODY {

                         { { OP COMMENT }

                             { COMMENT {TODO: Insert new actions here} }

                         }

                         { { OP COPY }

                             { ERR 0 }

                             { IN 0(0).GT1(%s1).#1 }

                             { OUT 0(0).GT1(%s1).#1 }

                         }

                         { { OP COPY }

                             { ERR 0 }

                             { IN 0(0).GT1(%s1).#3(0) }

                             { OUT 0(0).GT1(%s1).#3(0) }

                         }

                     }}

                  }

                • August 28, 2009 at 7:12 pm #68978
                  Jim Kosloskey
                  Participant

                    Shaun,

                    That all looks reasonable.

                    Have you used the HL/7 Testing Tool for the inbound 2.3 variant against the inbound datat with which you are testing your Xlate?

                    Also, double check the basis against what the HL/ Testing tool shows.

                    email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 29+ years Cloverleaf, 59 years IT - old fart.

                  • August 28, 2009 at 7:27 pm #68979
                    Shaun Beckman
                    Participant

                      Thanks. I’ll give that a try this weekend and let you know what I find.

                    • August 28, 2009 at 8:45 pm #68980
                      John Mercogliano
                      Participant

                        Shaun,

                         Also, one other possibility because your code looks fine. For your inbound variant, did you modify all the message types you will be processing?  On 2.3 the A04 has a PR1 group by default that would change the grouping order for the GT1 segment to 1(0).GT1 which would explain why your translation would not find it.  You didn’t meantion which message type you based your translation on.

                        Good Luck

                        John Mercogliano
                        Sentara Healthcare
                        Hampton Roads, VA

                      • October 7, 2009 at 8:47 pm #68981
                        Shaun Beckman
                        Participant

                          This issue got put on the back burner for awhile, but I was able to test it today. I overlooked the grouping, and that was the issue.

                          Thanks for all of your help!!!

                      • Author
                        Replies
                      Viewing 8 reply threads
                      • The forum ‘Cloverleaf’ is closed to new topics and replies.