Clovertech

upgrade from 5.4 to 5.7, path variable issue in xlate

› Clovertech Forums › Read Only Archives › Cloverleaf › Cloverleaf › upgrade from 5.4 to 5.7, path variable issue in xlate

  • Creator
    Topic
  • November 3, 2009 at 6:31 pm #51300
    Ryan Spires
    Participant

      In the process of testing an interface from 5.4 to 5.7,

    • Creator
      Topic
    Viewing 6 reply threads
    • Author
      Replies
      • November 4, 2009 at 2:36 pm #69582
        Zac Votrain
        Participant

          Just as an FYI this happens when going form 5.5 to 5.7 as well.

        • November 4, 2009 at 3:14 pm #69583
          Jim Kosloskey
          Participant

            Ryan,

            I am curious if the segment targetted is defined as optional or required.

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

          • November 4, 2009 at 3:52 pm #69584
            Ryan Spires
            Participant

              The segment itself is set in an optional repeated group, the segment alone is also set as repeatable, but not optional at the seg level.  The additional seg in the group is not mapped, so in this case the optional group “should” suffice.

            • November 4, 2009 at 4:29 pm #69585
              Jim Kosloskey
              Participant

                OK.

                I think this is a bug in 5.7.

                All previous versions (although I have not tried this in 5.6) that I have used going back to 3.3.1 have allowed for optional segment/groups to ‘collapse’ when a reference is made ‘skipping’ over previous segment/groups.

                In your example starting the creation of a new optional segment/group at somewhere other than zero should mean that the reference being made ends up being the first repetition (assuming no prior repetitions actually were populated).

                If the definition is required, then I would expect empty segments to be created ahead of the referenced repetition.

                As I said I think this is a bug. Would you consider reporting it?

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

              • November 4, 2009 at 5:50 pm #69586
                Ryan Spires
                Participant

                  I just sent the details to techsupport…   stating possible bug.   Not sure if that is the “formal” way to do it.. but i am sure they will instruct me if not.

                  thanks,

                • November 19, 2009 at 9:40 pm #69587
                  Max Drown (Infor)
                  Keymaster

                    Any reply from tech support on this?

                    -- Max Drown (Infor)

                  • November 19, 2009 at 9:51 pm #69588
                    Ryan Spires
                    Participant

                      I followed up this past week as I had not heard anything…  

                      I provided Quovadx a 5.4.1 version of the site and sample data.

                      As far as I know, they are working to replicate the issue after they convert to 5.7.  

                      I opened a second support issue in regards to the 2.6 hl7 standard variant also.   It appears that some sporadic fields are now 0 bytes.  This causes truncation of data to occur when used without modification as an outbound variant.

                      Ryan Spires

                  • Author
                    Replies
                  Viewing 6 reply threads
                  • The forum ‘Cloverleaf’ is closed to new topics and replies.