Specificity when copying field to field

[Mike Strout]

Quick question today. When copying say PV1-19 to PV1-19, perhaps with a formatting pre-proc, which is the best practice…

1(0).0(0).1(0).PV1(0).#19(0) > 1(0).0(0).1(0).PV1(0).#19(0)

or

1(0).0(0).1(0).PV1(0).#19(0).[0] > 1(0).0(0).1(0).PV1(0).#19(0).[0]

It is unlikely that PV1-19 would have subfields, but I still like the idea of being as specific as possible. Thoughts?

Topic

[Jim Kosloskey]

Mike,

To me it all depends on what the receiving system wants and/or can handle.

For example that particular field can have multiple components. If in the detailed specification process it is determined the receiving system can only handle or only wants the first component then using component notation will assure that.

On the other hand, if the detailed specification process reveals the receiving system can handle all the components but the sending system is not currently sending them all I would use field notation so if in the future the sending system begins to send more components the receiving system will get them without change.

But the only hard and fast rule in my opinion is to do the detailed specification and then make a judgment call.

Unfortunately in too many cases the detailed specification process is not properly done – primarily for the purpose of hitting time lines.

If that is the case, then make your best stab and hope.

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 60 years IT – old fart.

[Charlie Bursell]

1(0).0(0).1(0).PV1(0).#19(0).[0] > 1(0).0(0).1(0).PV1(0).#19(0).[0]

and 1.1.1.PV1.#19

Are exactly the same since the default for iteration, subfield or component is always 0.

Since the address is normally inserted by the Xlate tool I would  leave it like:

1(0).0(0).1(0).PV1(0).#19(0).[0] > 1(0).0(0).1(0).PV1(0).#19

[Author]

Replies