[Jim Kosloskey]

I want to make sure everyone understands the difference between the SEND and the CONTINUE Actions in the Xlate.

The SEND sends the message directly to the Destination Thread bypassing post Xlate processing between the Xlate and the Destination thread.

CONTINUE passes the message on to the next state in the engine (typically the post Xlate UPoC).

I recommend the use of the CONTINUE UNLESS you are sure there will not be any post Xlate processing. What can happen (has happened to me) is you have an Xlate running well (perhaps for years and maybe you did not even create it, with a SEND), then a requirement comes along that is best solved with the post Xlate UPoC. You create and test your code; then place it in the UPOC. But it does not seem to function. Bounce head against wall and burn up valuable hours until you discover the SEND which (of course) is bypassing the post Xlate Proc.

I submit with today’s Xlate power and chaining, it is rare a SEND is needed and indeed can get in the way later on.

Understand as well that the Xlate will always create a message UNLESS the SUPPRESS Action is used so in many cases the CONTINUE can cause multiple messages to be generated.

• This reply was modified 23 hours, 26 minutes ago by Jim Kosloskey. Reason: Add comments about automatic Xlate message generation

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

If I were to do this in an Xlate see attached.

First, I would ITERATE over the element in question (in our case the OBX segment in my case the OBX Group – no real difference.

Inside that ITERATE I would Check to see if any repetition OBX-3.1 is PDFReport. If it is set the SUPPRESS switch, then BREAK because we don’t need to keep checking.

ELSE
Do whatever is needed to build the message. No need for CONTINUE or SEND as the Xlate will always create one message outbound – in this case the one you build inside the ELSE.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

You are correct in that there may only be a portion of what you want initially (maybe ever) and indeed to expand the scope will be an effort, but this is a start and at least it is a start. Thanks for adding your input.

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

Although Site Doc is not really the topic here, might I suggest Infor is looking for suggestions about Site Doc at this link:

https://clovertech.infor.com/forums/topic/user-research-survey-cloverleaf-ide-site-documentation-tool-usage/

Since this seems to be a start to try to improve documentation, starting with this survey may begin the discussion to expansion of the documentation tools to be developed.

 

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

The idea for the \T\ is the receiving system should revert that back to an & if it is following the HL/7 standard. So, you see it as the \T\ in the message you send and then the receiving system changes that back to &.

Try that and see if the receiving system behaves properly. If not, let us know.

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

Sorry to hear that.

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

Thank you, but not brilliant, I just have bashed my head against the same wall before. Now get upgraded!!

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

If it worked in the testing tool, it should work in the engine assuming you are executing the same Xlate in the engine as you are testing. This is something you might have already checked but make sure the Xlate you are testing is in the same site as the engine is running.

As for the code, I would need to see more to assist should you be executing the same Xlate you are testing. If you would like to do a desktop sharing session where I can help, email me.

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

Congratulations in getting it working. It appears your solution will only work if there is one and only one OBX/NTE group. Perhaps that is the situation. However, if the source system ever sends multiple OBX/NTE Groups, your solution may not function as desired.

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

Another example is you can actually increment or decrement the % counters directly as well by doing a MATH ADD with $%s1 (for example) and =1 in the Source column and $%s1 in the Destination column.

The rule is when referencing the iteration variable (% counter) in the Source or Destination a $ must prepend the iteration value, whereas when used in the address path of a data item no $ is used (or else the result has the value of zero).

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

Actually, I do MATH Actions on the % variables all the time. You can increment or decrement them as needed inside the Xlate thus reducing or eliminating altogether the need for intervening temp variables.

For example, to set the Set ID for an OBX Segment, do a MATH ADD using $%s1 and =1 placing the result in the OBX Set ID field (the % variables are always relative to zero, the Set ID relative to one).

I cover this along with other Xlate ITERATE nuances and principles in my Xlate ITERATE Calss (shameless plug).

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

If after reading the provided answers (all of which are correct) you still are having issues, I am willing to via desktop sharing, help you work through this issue. There are some nuances involved.

Just email me and we can work on this off-line if you would like. Email is in my signature.

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

Hi Tom,

I did this and needed to make a copy of the message to be OVER’d prior to setting the disposition and returning to the engine. I can send you that proc and its User Doc if you email me.

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

Sounds worthwhile – thanks for sharing.

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

Roland,

email me (my email is in my signature on this post) and I will try to help.

Jim

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Author]

Replies