go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Feb 5, 2018 This error is usually indicative of a framing issue. Have you looked at what, specifically, this non-HL7 data consists of?
go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Feb 2, 2018 The issue with the "[" option is that it doesn't compare the MRNs individually; it treats the entire PID:3 field (which can contain multiple MRNs) as the value to locate in MRG:1. You'd have to first locate the PID:3 iteration that contains the "CKS" facility identifier, then check the MRG:1 field to see if it's contained within it.
go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Feb 2, 2018 Hi Richard,The issue in this case was that there could be a variable number of repetitions in the PID:3 and MRG:1 fields, and that there was no guarantee that the MRNs for each facility would appear in the same order. So the actual need was to be able to compare each iteration of the MRN in PID:3 with each iteration of the MRN in MRG:1. This is cumbersome/difficult without a loop construct in the Rules editor, and would require at least as many sequential comparisons as there are repetitions in PID:3.The example you provided compares only the first iteration of PID:3 with the first iteration of MRG:1, so if the desired match appeared in any subsequent iteration of either of those fields the desired outcome would not be achieved. This is one of those cases where some ObjectScript is a more streamlined solution.
go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Jan 30, 2018 Yes, and just recently too.You very likely need to run an index validation against Ens.MessageHeader.NAMESPACE>Set sc = $System.OBJ.ValidateIndices("Ens.MessageHeader",,1,1)Depending on the size of your database, it could take a while ... possibly weeks if you're in the multi-terabyte range. It has very little impact on performance, though. If you think it might take a while, you can create a task class and have it run non-interactively in Task Manager (that's what I did).Once it's complete, your message purge should remove the old cruft automatically.
go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Jan 30, 2018 Scott, there's a utility called %GSIZE that does just this; it analyzes global storage and reports allocated vs. actual use.namespace> d ^%GSIZEIt will prompt you for the database directory (defaulted to your current namespace's), whether you want to include all globals (Yes), globals that contain no data (No), and whether it should show details (Yes). Hit Enter for Device: or specify a path/filename if you want the report written to disk, and Enter again for the Right margin.If your environment is mirrored, you can run it against the mirror. It could take a while to run; an Ensemble database I've worked with recently is 10TB in size and it took a month to complete.EDIT: Should've paid attention to your qualification, too ... that's something that will take a bit of query development, thinking in terms of message volume between specific source and target config items along with an analysis of message content size. You'd be working with Ens.MessageHeader for that ...
go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Jan 29, 2018 I think the intent is to limit configuration control of business hosts in an Ensemble production based on user role. Effectively, prevent a Cache/Ensemble user from changing the IP address or port number of a TCP/IP Business Operation through the Management Console without restricting the ability to view the settings.
go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Jan 26, 2018 So how is this an ACTUAL solution if you're going to get cursed at for using it in a Production environment?
go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Jan 25, 2018 And if there will always be a fixed number of iterations, you could do "1."_$CASE(k1,1:"a",2:"b",3:"c",4:"d",5:"e",6:"f",:""). It's hard to say which solution is less intuitive, though.Another variation ... "1."_$EXTRACT("abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz",k1). The possibilities are endless!
go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Jan 24, 2018 Do you have access to the Cache terminal?NAMESPACE> Do $System.SQL.Shell()I know it's not exactly what you asked for, but it doesn't time out ...
go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Jan 24, 2018 Hmm. You could do something like "1."_$C(96 + k1) for the value of that field, assuming k1 is the iterator.Things are gonna get funky when you hit the 27th iteration, though
go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Jan 24, 2018 If the value you've fetched from the table is stored in a context variable, you can simply refer to the context variable as context.<variablename> in DTL invoked from within the BPL.
go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Jan 22, 2018 Thank you, Eduard.I'm still a bit concerned that this violates the abstraction layer, but I'm coming to the conclusion that there's just no other way.
go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Jan 19, 2018 If the Caché account name is the same as the OS account name, select System Administration | Security | System Security | Authentication/CSP Session Options and check Allow Operating System authentication. You'll automatically be logged on using an account with the same name as the OS account, assuming one has been created in Caché, and will have all permissions set for that account and its roles.If you don't care who you're logged in as, enable Allow Unauthenticated Access on the same page and make sure the UnknownUser account is enabled. You'll still be prompted for user/password, but you can press enter twice to bypass. You'll then have all permissions that have been set for UnknownUser and its associated roles.
go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Jan 18, 2018 You can treat a lookup table (Ens.Util.LookupTable) like any SQL table, using the LIKE operator to perform either "contains" ('%strval%') or "StartsWith" ('%strval') searches, but I don't think that's what you're really looking for. I'm thinking that, based on the logic you supplied, you're looking for two tables: One containing keys that you will use as "StartsWith" strings, and the other as "Contains" strings. You'd like to iterate through one table for your "Contains" comparisons, checking each AIL:3.2 against each key. And for your "StartsWith" comparisons, the other table. This would keep it maintainable in the Ensemble section of the Management Console, but you'd only really be populating the KeyName field. Wrapped in a couple of FunctionSet methods, this would simplify your rule considerably.But here are some examples of "Contains" vs. "StartsWith" queries against Ens.Util.LookupTable, just in case:ISYSDEV>>select KeyName from Ens_Util.LookupTable where TableName = 'ALLERGY_CODES' and KeyName LIKE '%mon%'12. select KeyName from Ens_Util.LookupTable where TableName = 'ALLERGY_CODES' and KeyName LIKE '%mon%'KeyNameAlmondsalmondscinnamonlemons4 Rows(s) Affectedstatement prepare time: 0.1417s, elapsed execute time: 0.0011s.--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISYSDEV>>select KeyName from Ens_Util.LookupTable where TableName = 'ALLERGY_CODES' and KeyName LIKE 'cin%'13. select KeyName from Ens_Util.LookupTable where TableName = 'ALLERGY_CODES' and KeyName LIKE 'cin%'KeyNamecinnamon1 Rows(s) Affectedstatement prepare time: 0.0006s, elapsed execute time: 0.0003s.---------------------------------------------------------------------------
go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Jan 18, 2018 Barry, Source is the string value from the message header's SourceConfigName property, and source.%Source is an error:
go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Jan 17, 2018 The method takes the message object as its first argument, referenced by the variable Document in the Rule Editor. The call you should be making is, literally, CheckMrnDupForFac(Document,"CKS"). The method will parse the PID:3 and MRG:1 fields for you; you don't need to supply them literally.
go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Jan 17, 2018 The expression editor will often add a period after "Document" ... can you verify that you removed it?
go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Jan 17, 2018 Well, it can ... but you would need to contact the WRC for a version of ServerManager.exe that supports it:
go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Jan 15, 2018 Are you using the correct Context and RuleAssist for EnsLib.EDI.XMLDocument in your routing rule configuration? Here's the documentation link.
go to post Jeffrey Drumm · Jan 15, 2018 @Thembelani Mlalazi, he's specifically looking to get at the element %Source, which is not a field defined by the user in the RecordMap, and is not visible to the Context of the Rule.
