cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

PI Alert Problem

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi All,

I am having weird problems with respect to PI Alerts.

Sometimes when i change the Alert Category in alrtcatdef t-code, then the changes which i make are not reflected when a new alert is generated in the inbox.

Do we need to do anything else for the changes to be reflected?

Even at times after making the changes none of the alert containers are filled with values. Sometimes the problem gets solved when i unsubscribe and then subscribe again to the alert rule.

I am on XI7.0 SP 9. I dont think there are any notes to be implemented relating to alerts for the above Service Pack.

One more problem in my alrtcatdef ..

i have defined long text as...

Adapter Type --> <b>&SXMS_TO_ADAPTER_TYPE&</b>

<i>&SXMS_TO_ADAPTER_TYPE&</i>

Sender System --> &SXMS_FROM_SERVICE&

For the one in bold the container element is not filled and for the one in italic the container element is filled with the Adapter Type (ie JDBC).

Any solution for this?

Thanks

Rahul

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

bhavesh_kantilal
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Rahul,

><i>For the one in bold the container element is not filled and for the one in italic the container element is filled with the Adapter Type (ie JDBC).</i>

The adapter Engine related container variables will be filled up only if the error occurs in the adapter engine. In your case, did the error occur in your Adapter Engine or the Integration Engine?

Also, in your Alert Rule, did you select the check box --> <b>Suppress Multiple Alerts of this Rule</b>.? If yes, deselect the same and then the alert will be triggered for every time the error occurs.

Regards

Bhavesh

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Bhavesh,

If you notice the one in italic and bold both are same.

Secondly the alert has occured in the Adapter Engine.

I have not selected Suppress Multiple Alerts of this Rule.

Regards,

Rahul

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi All,

Another small problem ..

THe container element SXMS_TO_ADAPTER_ERRTXT

does not contain the full description of the error.

LIke in adapter monitoring the error message which i see is ..

<i>Error while parsing or executing XML-SQL document: Error processing request in sax parser: Error when executing statement for table/stored proc. 'xitest' (structure 'STATEMENT'): java.sql.SQLException: [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Violation of PRIMARY KEY constraint 'PK_XITest'. Cannot insert duplicate key in object 'XITest'.</i>

Where as in alert inbox i only get half of the error message..

<b><i>Error processing request in sax parser: Error when executing statement for table</i></b>

Thanks

Rahul

bhavesh_kantilal
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi,

This is a problem because the Container Element has some length restriction. One of the questions in note : 913858 refers to this issue and the solution. Please take a look at it.

<i><b>Why are sometimes certain error categories (e.g. SXMS_TO_ADAPTER_ERRTXT) not filled?

A10: This is due to an error in the Business Object Repository when the value of a container variable exceeds 255 characters. Please implement the correction described in note #947738.</b></i>

And from note 947738

<i><b>Information which exceeds the length of 255 characters will be truncated to 255 before filling the container variable.</b></i>

Regards

Bhavesh

Former Member
0 Kudos

HI Bhavesh,

That is true, but im on SP9 and that note is already implemented.

Moreover only 81 char is coming in the alert message.

Thanks

Rahul

bhavesh_kantilal
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Rahul,

Only 255 characters will be displayed if you have implemented the note.!

Am not sure, but , I guess intrenally the text that is being displayed for you is equuivalent to the BOR Container length allowed. The 255 does not mean the lenght of the text , but should be the internal representation.

Just my 2 cents,

Regards

Bhavesh

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Take a look at this note...

913858

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Anand,

I have been through that note before. It is not relevant to my case.

Thanks

Rahul