Testing an XLT Pre Proc for a COPY action

This topic has 4 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 2 months ago by Charlie Bursell.

Creator

Topic
July 10, 2008 at 7:24 pm #50171
Jon Blanchard
Participant
In an Xlate, I created a COPY action and set the Pre Proc to the tcl proc called field_ScrubHL7AndOtherSpecialChars. The proc contains the following code:

Code: proc field_ScrubHL7AndOtherSpecialChars {} { upvar xlateId xlateId xlateInList xlateInList xlateInTypes xlateInTypes xlateInVals xlateInVals xlateOutList xlateOutList xlateOutTypes xlateOutTypes xlateOutVals xlateOutVals lassign $xlateInVals InputData set InputData [string map {\T\ AND \N\ ” ” \F\ ” ” \H\ ” ” \R\ ” ” \E\ ” ” \S\ ” “} $InputData] set InputData [string map {/ ” ” \ ” ” % ” ” $ ” ” ! ” “} $InputData] set InputData [string trimright $InputData] set xlateOutVals [list $InputData] }

To test this tcl proc, I brought up the Testing Tool and set up the following:
Procs = field_ScrubHL7AndOtherSpecialChars
Data File = field_scrub_test_data.txt

Run Mode

New Line Terminated

Caller Context = xlt_pre

The data file contains several lines of single field test data to test the above proc. The output after clicking the Run Command button is:



Code:


Please Wait ……

Command Issued: hcitpstest -r run -f nl -c xlt_pre S:/quovadx/qdx5.5/integrator/pms/data/field_scrub_test_data.txt “field_ScrubHL7AndOtherSpecialChars”

Command output:
[0:TEST] Tcl error:

	msgId	= message0

	proc	= ‘field_ScrubHL7AndOtherSpecialChars’

	args	= ”

	result	= ‘wrong # args: should be “field_ScrubHL7AndOtherSpecialChars”‘

	errorInfo: ‘

wrong # args: should be “field_ScrubHL7AndOtherSpecialChars”

    while executing

“field_ScrubHL7AndOtherSpecialChars {MSGID message0} {CONTEXT xlt_pre} {ARGS {}} {MODE run} {VERSION 3.0}”‘

I know that the base tcl code works and the xlt wrapper is a clone from another xlt proc, so the question is how to set up the Testing Tool to correctly handle this as a XLT Pre Proc. Can anyone give me a direction to go with this?

Thanks.

Migration Consultant
Coffee Regional Medical Center
Eastern Time Zone

Viewing 3 reply threads

Author

Replies

July 10, 2008 at 7:36 pm #65096

Robert Milfajt
Participant

I am not sure xlt_pre is the correct context. xlt_pre is the pre_proc you see in the route screen for a particular xlate for a route. Hence the arguments passed in being MODE=run, MSGID=message0, etc.

Your script is a TCL proc that runs in the procs for a particular COPY command, which is a totally different context, which is called from within an Xlate.

I am not sure how you would configure the testing tool to show the functioning of this particular proc, but you could test the translation via the tester tool to prove this is working.

Bob

Robert Milfajt
Northwestern Medicine
Chicago, IL
July 10, 2008 at 8:00 pm #65097

Tom Rioux
Participant

Why don’t you try putting some echo statements in your tcl fragment code then test the xlate with your data file. You can tell by the results of the echo statements if the desired information is being passed to, translated, and passed out of your tcl fragment.

Thanks…

Tom Rioux
July 10, 2008 at 8:10 pm #65098

Jon Blanchard
Participant

Guys:

Thanks for your ideas. I went ahead and tested the Xlates with the Pre Proc and it works, so I am able to move forward with my current project.

In the Testing Tool, what is the xlt-pre Caller Context used for? Other similar contexts are xlt-post, xlt-raw and xlt-gen. Perhaps I assumed too much.

Migration Consultant
Coffee Regional Medical Center
Eastern Time Zone
July 10, 2008 at 9:56 pm #65099

Charlie Bursell
Participant

You are confusng an xlt_pre TPS proc with the PRE proc portion of an Xlate action. The xlt_pre TPS proc goies in the route prior to the route action. The other PRE is embedded within an Xlate action and has no context.

The only way to test the latter type of proc is via hcixlttest (Command line or GUI)

Viewing 3 reply threads

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

Testing an XLT Pre Proc for a COPY action

Forums

Forum Statistics