Thanks i had looked at the documentation the insert data from another table and the defining a table from another table. 

Yes the syntax wasn't quite like documentation (was solid normal sql syntax i think) . Still doesn't seem to like it via linked table 

ERROR #5475: Error compiling routine: %sqlcq.SRFT.cls301. Errors: %sqlcq.SRFT.cls301.cls ERROR: %sqlcq.SRFT.cls301.1(19) : <UNDEFINED>parseExtFromNode+1^%qaqcmx *mt("f","1^SAMPLE.TEST") :

EnumerateJobStatus returns what portal sees 

while resultset.%Next() {do resultset.%Print()}
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:22:55.320" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:22:55.322" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:23:00.425" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:37:09.665" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:37:09.666" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:37:09.667" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:37:09.669" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:37:09.670" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:37:09.671" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:37:09.672" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:37:09.673" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:37:09.674" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:37:09.676" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:37:09.677" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:37:43.162" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:38:31.334" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:39:08.718" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:39:31.265" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:41:07.591" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:42:07.282" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:47:07.486" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:47:55.697" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:50:31.971" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:50:55.610" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:51:12.143" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:51:49.692" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:51:59.348" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:52:08.554" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:52:32.065" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:53:00.146" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-05 14:53:56.552" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 06:59:22.608" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 06:59:46.682" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 07:00:34.744" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 07:00:46.823" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 07:01:22.856" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 07:03:46.967" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 07:07:53.180" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 07:09:41.327" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 07:15:35.702" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 07:17:47.825" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 07:18:35.831" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 07:23:24.191" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 07:27:00.354" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 07:33:18.946" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 07:50:25.979" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 07:50:38.109" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 07:51:14.008" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 07:52:38.147" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 07:54:26.438" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-11 17:56:14.557" 1
"PAS Outbound Process"  OK  "2024-12-13 15:22:56.105" 1
"PAS Outbound Process" 12648 OK  "2024-12-18 14:15:16.105" 18

I think it might be my misunderanding of how the rule editor works with foreach but the documentation is not clear 

I would expect to see trace "1" send, trace "2" send, not it running through the foreach until the end have a count of how much it succeeded and then send with userdata "2" twice. Is there a way to change this? Why it is this way around?

Hi:

The reason for counts rather than days was a more granular approach to deleting data with no day information about it i.e. Stream data which would not have a date assigned to it.

Also a lot of custom data ends up in the same table if you don't define a new location for the message data. This would cause an inability to run proper sql against it to clear out the data so a count based approach of where the last message id was required 

Hi Josh:

It's interesting you find it is an intermittent issue. We had some very large rules and when we turned on the new rule editor no matter what would get an :( face. 

If we deleted a few rules up to a certain amount this would load up correctly. 

If you look in your devtools when this happens it is a timeout issue where the connection is being closed prior to the rule having loaded. 

With asking WRC and pointing out the issue the :( issue was replicated in 2023.1 but did not happen in 2024.x. 

What I think it is is the gateway timeout time is too small and if you update the timeout to a bit longer it might allow the web application to load. 

Alternatively go to web application /ui/interop/rule-editor and disable the application to go back to the old rule editor. This issue and No crtl+f find functionality has caused many people to divert from the new editor until it is optimised, as well as i believe in 2023 too much whitespace.