ORU / ORU_R01 Xlate issue in the Test Tool for 5.7.1

This topic has 5 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 6 months ago by Connie Kraska.

Creator

Topic
June 14, 2010 at 12:36 pm #51806
Ryan Boone
Participant
I write TCL scripts 95% of the time, so now I’m running into what I hope is a simple Xlate issue. We’ve just upgraded to 5.7.1.

I’m running an ORU^R01 result message in the test tool for an Xlate. The output indicates that the PV1 is not defined for message type ORU_R01 and that the second pair of ORC/OBR segments are out of order. However, the default variant in use has a PV1, and the segments are not out of order. The test tool then drops the segments in question.

When I run the messages through the Xlate in the engine, it does not generate the error messages in the log, nor does it drop the segments. Currently I am only doing a Bulkcopy and mapping just two OBR fields (only the first OBR since the second one is being dropped). I copied the default ORU message variant to an ORU_R01 variant, but that did not help. Also, the in- and outbound variants are identical.

Any suggestions about what I may be missing?

Thanks!

Ryan Boone
Creator

Topic

Viewing 4 reply threads

Author

Replies
- June 14, 2010 at 1:08 pm #71806
  Jim Kosloskey
  Participant
  Ryan,
  
  There is a Rev 2 it appears you are Rev 1 – I would apply that and try again.
  
  email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 29+ years Cloverleaf, 59 years IT - old fart.
- June 14, 2010 at 2:27 pm #71807
  Ryan Boone
  Participant
  Jim,
  
  I apologize — we do have the Rev 2 patch, so I typed the wrong version.
  
  I found another, similar Xlate with variants that I had created from scratch in 5.7.2. Now I am not receiving the same errors in the test tool. The Xlate that generated the errors had a previously created, reused variant on outbound, and although it looks identical to me, I’m not longer getting the same errors. However, while it no longer indicates that the PV1 is invalid and that the ORC/OBR pairs are out of order, now the Xlate simply isn’t iterating them properly:
  
  1(0).1(0).0(0).ORC(0) : >|CN<
  
  1(0).1(0).0(0).OBR(0) : >|1||1001938|142^XR-KNEE 4 VIEWS INJURY|||20100609151236|||||||||99999^NOAH||||||20100609151838|||F||^^^20100609144800||||FALL/PAIN|1234|~121055<
  
  1(0).1(1).0(0).ORC(0) : >|RE<
  
  1(0).1(1).0(0).OBR(0) : >|2||1001937|4^XR-ANKLE 3V|||20100609151236|||||||||99999^NOAH||||||20100609151838|||F||^^^20100609144800||||FALL/PAIN|121055|~1234<
  
  I’m iterating on the group 1(0).1(0).0 with %g1 as the variable. What is the simple thing that I’m missing here? 🙂
  
  Thanks,
  
  Ryan Boone
- June 14, 2010 at 2:49 pm #71808
  Jim Kosloskey
  Participant
  Ryan,
  
  Double check your basis for the ITERATE – I think it is incorrect.
  
  You can use the inbound tree in the ITERATE Action to properly set the basis.
  
  email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 29+ years Cloverleaf, 59 years IT - old fart.
- June 14, 2010 at 4:13 pm #71809
  Ryan Boone
  Participant
  Thank you for your help Jim, with resolving both of my questions above (regarding the previous Xlate I was using and the current one).
- June 14, 2010 at 5:58 pm #71810
  Connie Kraska
  Participant
  Ryan, we just upgraded to 5.7 also. We found the inforcement of variant rules seems to have tightened up. We got around some of these issue by making the offending segment optional. other times I had to go back and look at the standard variant and build groupings there were never there before. But try optional – that often seemed to do the trick for us. And we write tons of Tcl here, also.
Author

Replies

Viewing 4 reply threads

The forum ‘Cloverleaf’ is closed to new topics and replies.