Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.
196 views

Generic Driver Question: Policy/Rule Placement in Dataflow


Could someone give me some idea on how to solve this?

On the publisher channel I am receiving an attribute value from the
application which is being used to generate another attribute value in
the vault. This other attribute does not exist in the application, so I
am receiving 4 values from the application and trying to pass 5 values
to the vault.

In one of the configurations I had this policy among the publisher
channel creation policies with a set destination attribute value. It
worked fine with an add. However, if I am receiving a modify on a
non-associated object which then gets converted to an add, the
synchronization errors out. The error is that this 5th attribute does
not exist in the application schema. I moved that policy around in the
publisher channel and got the same results.

How should I approach this synchronization?


--
celsolima
------------------------------------------------------------------------
celsolima's Profile: https://forums.netiq.com/member.php?userid=260
View this thread: https://forums.netiq.com/showthread.php?t=50455

Labels (1)
0 Likes
5 Replies
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Generic Driver Question: Policy/Rule Placement in Dataflow

The merging of objects, including pulling the value from the application,
should happen pretty early in the channel. If this is meant to be added
only on a creation (presumably) then put it in the Creation Transformation
Policyset (the one after matching and before placement) and you should be
fine. If this should happen on all types of events where the original
attribute is modified, try the Command Transformation policyset.

--
Good luck.

If you find this post helpful and are logged into the web interface,
show your appreciation and click on the star below...
0 Likes
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Generic Driver Question: Policy/Rule Placement in Dataflow


I had already tried it as both command transformation and event
transformation policies with the same result. That is what I meant when
I mentioned I had moved the policy around.

To answer your other question. It will not be just for adds. It just
happens that I was testing adds when I ran into that scenario and
decided to explore it some more. When the account is modified at the
data source, I will need to update the same attribute if the source
attribute changes. Thus the creation transformation policy set would not
be a good place for it. That policy was first placed in the event
transformation policy set. After that I moved it to the command
transformation policy set.

I had included the destination attribute in the driver filter thinking
it would have to be there. However, I see now it was a mistake if there
was no application attribute to map it to. I just removed that attribute
from the filter and the error went away. I guess because the
synchronization worked for the regular adds, I didn't think that
attribute in the filter was an issue. The policy has been placed in the
command transformation policy set.


--
celsolima
------------------------------------------------------------------------
celsolima's Profile: https://forums.netiq.com/member.php?userid=260
View this thread: https://forums.netiq.com/showthread.php?t=50455

0 Likes
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Generic Driver Question: Policy/Rule Placement in Dataflow

celsolima wrote:

>
> I had included the destination attribute in the driver filter thinking
> it would have to be there. However, I see now it was a mistake if there
> was no application attribute to map it to. I just removed that attribute
> from the filter and the error went away. I guess because the
> synchronization worked for the regular adds, I didn't think that
> attribute in the filter was an issue.


General rule.
Unless the attribute exists in the app or you are manufacturing the attribute in the input transform (and tagging it for manufacture in the output transform), it shouldn't be in the publisher filter at all.

> The policy has been placed in the
> command transformation policy set.


That plus removing it from the filter should do the trick.

--
If you find this post helpful and are logged into the web interface,
show your appreciation and click on the star below...
0 Likes
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Generic Driver Question: Policy/Rule Placement in Dataflow

On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 19:24:01 +0000, celsolima wrote:

> Could someone give me some idea on how to solve this?


Level 3 trace, so we can see what you're doing?


> On the publisher channel I am receiving an attribute value from the
> application which is being used to generate another attribute value in
> the vault. This other attribute does not exist in the application, so I
> am receiving 4 values from the application and trying to pass 5 values
> to the vault.


So you're synthesizing an attribute in the Vault, based on attribute(s)
received from the application? That shouldn't be a big deal to do.


> In one of the configurations I had this policy among the publisher
> channel creation policies with a set destination attribute value.


Normally I'd do this on the Command Transform.

The Create Rule only applies on newly added objects. If the source
application attribute(s) can change, and the destination synthetic
attribute needs to change, you don't want to do this on the Create Rule.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Gersic dgersic_@_niu.edu
Knowledge Partner http://forums.netiq.com

Please post questions in the forums. No support provided via email.
If you find this post helpful, please click on the star below.
0 Likes
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Generic Driver Question: Policy/Rule Placement in Dataflow


It turned out to be a mistake I made with the driver filter. That
policy would have worked the first time around regardless of the event
had it not been for that entry in the filter. The policy is just a
concatenation of 2 strings. Because the driver didn't error out when a
regular add transaction was coming through it, I assumed the filter was
ok when it was not. I will remember that the next time. 😄


--
celsolima
------------------------------------------------------------------------
celsolima's Profile: https://forums.netiq.com/member.php?userid=260
View this thread: https://forums.netiq.com/showthread.php?t=50455

0 Likes
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.