[BPM] problem with

[Former Member]

Hi,

I created a BPM, that split an incoming message into three parts: hardware, software and service. Then I I open a fork with three branches. Every branch is for one of the splitted parts and include a forEach-block that sends emails.

After the fork I map the mail receipt to a message I use for closing a S/A-bridge.

If the source messeage includes a hardware, software and service entry, it works fine, but if only one or more hardware is given, it breaks at the last mapping of the email receipt. I think this happen because no software or service is given and he try to map an empty mail receipt to the response message.

How can I handle this??

Thanks

chris

[bhavesh_kantilal · Accepted solution]

Hi,

Have you seen the node function --> MAPWITHDEFAULT? will it help?

Regards

Bhavesh

[udo_martens]

Hi Christian,

your scenario is hardly to understand, but if you want to map an empty source message, just take a XLST mapping, the result will be like every field would be empty.

Regards,

Udo

[Former Member]

Hey,

now I tried the function MapWithDefault, but without success.

To understand what I want to do:

1) receive a message from a rfc sender -> open s/a-bridge

2) split this message to software, hardware and service container

(splitting messages are saved in 3 different mulitline container in bpm)

3) open a parallel fork

4) forEach sending of the messages out of multiline container

(in this forEach, I use XLST to map from multiline element to email message)

5) close parallel fork and map email response to close s/a-bridge message

(but don't know which response he uses, but doesn't matter. Don't need

the information, just need to close s/a-bridge)

6) at the end, close s/a-bridge

Two problems:

1. He crashes if only hardware, service or software is given

2. the forEach sending only ONE email, even if 2 or more items (of hardware for example) is given. But if I test my mapping he creates the required number of messages.

Any idea how to debug this??

[Former Member]

Hi,

found a solution. I just delete the parallel fork. Now I have

three blocks which are handled sequential instead of parallel.

It seemed that the first branch who finished the forEach-Loop

terminated the other branches.

regards

chris