Bug or Feature?

[Former Member]

Hi,

while using a n:1 or n:m Mapping inside a ccBPM I have the problem that messages are disappearing. For example I have 3 Messages (Abstract Interfaces) in the order A, B and C where A and C are mandatory and B is optional for the Interface Mapping.

As long as I set all messages inside the ccBPM there are no problems. But if I just set A and C (no entry for B, it is optional), I'll get an error at runtime. In the technical workflow log there is just the container-entry "MESSAGES_IN - 1 Entry", so A is there but C is missing.

So my question, is this a bug or a feature?

Best regards

Robert

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Robert,

Even if msg B is not there and you are receiving the msg's A and C then your interface mapping should work fine. please check the occurrence of the interface B in <b>interface</b> mapping is 0..1 and not 1 which is the default value.

Also can you please explain how you are collecting the msgs before calling the transformation step. it might be that you transformation step is getting triggered before msg C is received in this particular case.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Unfortunately it doesn't work without B.

In the BPM B is not just empty, the field is left blank. And this seems to be the problem XI can not handle.

The configuration is fine (double checked it with colleagues).

The messages are all results of other mappings before, so there should be no timing problem as I can see the messages in the log.

[bhavesh_kantilal · Accepted solution]

I encountered a similar issue once and my conlusion was similar to yours.

This is how N:1 Mappings work in a BPM. You need to ensure that all the Elements are created Mandatorily.

One reason I think is that the Messages Tag that is added to each message is Message 1 , message2 ( and so on) has a occurence of 1..1

The work around to this if you are not sure if all 3 Messages in the BPM will be available in the runtime is to create N:1 mapings with all possible combinations and then check within a Switch for the occurence of first message and so on.

Not sure though if this is standard BPM behavior.Maybe someone else has tried this.

Regards

Bhavesh

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Ok, so it sounds really like a Bug.

My solution was the change the order of the messages to A C B, this is also working, but this is not always practicable.

Not so easy to create generic mappings then .

[justin_santhanam]

Robert,

What do u mean by optional message for Interfce mapping? Could you please explain it...

-raj.

[Former Member]

Yes, I'm using Blocks, but the messages are in process-context.

With optional I mean in the IM the occurrence is set to "0..1".

[prateek]

Misunderstud

Regards,

Prateek

Message was edited by:

Prateek Srivastava

[Former Member]

In the Interface Mapping the node is the message.

Also in BPM there is no error (red border around) for empty messages if those are set to 0..x in selected Interface Mapping. Otherwise it is an error in BPM if you leave this field blank and the occurence is set to 1..x.

[Former Member]

Are you using blocks in the BPM?