I’ve searched the EDI Users Guide and the Flat File Schema Developers guide and I can not find any reference to recordWithNoID. I’ve also searched the readme.txt file and it’s not referenced as one of the items deprecated.

How do you create a schema to replace a template with recordWithNoID?

When you create a Flat files schema, you can specify the Default record structure in the Settings Tab. Apparently, when a record is identified as ‘recordWithNoID’, it automatically assigns to the default structure. It can be structure derived from a schema or a template.

FYI,

The solution turned out to be as follows:
Use pub.flatFile:convertToString as it will not place the record identifier (recordWithNoID) in the output vs. wm.b2b.edi:convertToString which does.
Use Field Extractor Nth Field and sequentially position your fields.
You do not require a Default Record. I think a default record is used to format Undefined Data but I’m not sure.

HTH

how to create a flat file from a document type without record identifier wm 6.0? I am new to wm6.0 . So please help me. Your help is greatly appreciated

Thanks,
Srivats

I got it. To create a flat file in wm 6.0 without record identifier, I followed these steps:

Created a dictionary as usual
Create the flat file schema and in the schema, I renamed the record name as ‘recordWithNoID’ and then after saving, generated a flat file structure.
Then mapped the relevant fields.
Looped over the documenttype and used convertToString…

Thanks to all,

Srivats

When creating a document from a flat file with no record ID’s (using webMethods Developer 6.1) I had to do the following:

1. Create a FF dictionary containing the record definition containing each field (fixed position in my case) from the flat file. It was not necessary to name the record definition in the FF Dictionary with the string “recordWithNoID”.

2. Create a FF schema to be used to parse the flat file. It was not necessary to name the record definition or even to create a record definition.

3. On the “Flat File Definition” tab of the FF schema it was necessary to choose a default record from the dictionary by clicking on the “set” label in the properties window. You can clear the default record information by clicking on the “delete” label.
   

4. Test the FF schema by using Test - Run (or CTRL-R) and choosing a flat file from your file system.

5. Assuming your the record definition in your FF dictionary was correct you should see the parsed data in your results window. Interestingly, the name of the document that is the only child of the ffValues document was “recordWithNoID” even though I never specified this name in either my FF Dictionary or my FF Schema…

Mark

Hello all,

a return to an old topic!!!  I'm trying to use what you're describing above and I got problem with it. 

I created a sample schema with 3 Record Definition AA, AB and AE and I set the whole thing for the recordWithNoID as for the default record. 

What I want to be able to do with this is treat a simple file with those values for example : 

AAtest1
ABtest1
ACtest1
ADtest1
ACtest1
ADtest1
AEtest1

So what I would expect it to do is actually return me the first segment AA, then AB, then AC and AD as a recordWithNoID and AE and that's what it's doing but it's returning me the AC and AD records underneath the AB record like if it was a sub-record of this one. 

I noticed when I create the DT from my schema that's it's actually adding the recordWithNoID as a document list (which is ok) "everywhere" in between each segment but inside every segments as well.  (sorry I'm on a client's pc and ain't got any tool to do a snagit of the screen) 

So when I'm trying to test the schema with the file above, my records AC and AD are all put underneath the record AB as a sub-segment of this one. 

Does anyone knows what I'm doing wrong?  What I want is to have those segments as a recordWithNoID as a seperate segment of it's own at the same level as AA, AB and AE. 

Thanks for your help.

Mathieu

Instead of using recordWithNoID option just define the AA,AB,AC/AD,AE as record definitions with newline as delimiter.

And AC has child segment AD according to your sample and AC will be repeating containing (AC[0]/AD and AC[1]/AD etc…

Please check this out.

Thanks,

No I got to use recordWithNoID or something like this because in my case I don’t know in which order I might receive the AC and AD segments and how many occurence of each I can receive. The AD segment is not a child segment of AC by the way, it’s really a segment on it’s own just like AC.

So I might receive something like this :
AAtest1
ABtest1
ACtest1
ACtest1
ADtest1
ACtest1
ADtest1
AEtest1

The only way I see it would really be to use this recordWithNoID but like I was saying, it’s treating all the AC and AD as a child of AB. I want to see if there a way not to have that recordWithNoID defined as a child on those AA, AB and AE segments!

Thanks!

Mathieu

Actually if you dont keep AD as child of AC then schema will not generate the results as expected and AC,AD segments will mess up.

Will you be always receving AA,AB,AC/AD,AE segments in the file?Then instead of recordWithNoID use these as record definitions.

Please see the attachment i created a TestSchema package which i described above,Check it out.

Sorry if it didn’t helped,

HTHm

make sure you are using convertToString in the wmFlatFile package and not the one in the wmEDI package.

Thanks Chris but I’m not even at that point yet, I’m trying to test the schema itself.

RMG, thanks for the helo too but that not it yet I will always receive AA, AB and AE but as for AC and AD, I’m not sure I will receive them and I’m not sure in which order. They can be there many times and in any order but always between AB and AE.

Thanks for your help.

Mathieu

Oh ok,
i will post it if i have some solution.

Even if AC/AD you didnt receive in the file the above sample schema work and will parse AA.AB,AE records.

HTH,

I ran into this problem a while back when migrating from 4.6 to 6.01 which we abandoned in favor of 6.1.

The issue with the recordWithNoID element being a sub element of the preceding element I believe has a fix for it on 6.01.

The reason I say this is that webMethods migrated a fix that was available on 6.01 to a 6.1 version. The fix on 6.1 is called IS_6-1_Fix5 and addresses a few issues with flat files.

If I was you I would contact webMethods to have them provide you with the 6.01 version of the fix to this problem.

I’m able to parse AA, AB and AE even when I got some AC and AD the only thing I want to do is get those AC and AD in a segment of their own when treated via the recordWithNoID…I don’t want to get them as a child of any segments.

Mathieu

Since AC/AD have multiple instances in the file i dont think schema will parse as a separate individual segments.

Please contact wm support if they have some fix for this problem as Daniel mentioned above.

Thanks,

Thank you all, I will check it out with webMethods and get back to you with an update in case you need this in the future!

Mathieu

I need some confirmation on this. Tech support is telling me that recordWithNoID is not supported in any 6.x version of webMethods. I know that’s not ture as I was able to do this prior to applying SP2.

Has anyone been able to create a working schema in 6.0.1 SP2 that works.

Here is what Tech support sent me. I’m basically disagreeing with their statement.
>>
I talked to our developer regarding this issue. As the 6.x version, you
can’t create a record called ‘recordWithNoId’ - this would not have worked
in ANY version of the 6.x flat file adapter.

Instead, declare the record in a dictionary as the way that I have already
suggested. I do understand that ‘recordWithNoId’ has not mentioned in the
6.x doc as not supported. The doc states the methods that we do support.
If you want the flat file doc to state that no support of ‘recordWithNoId’
in 6.x version, please let me know so I will put as a feature request.
<<
Thanks.

yes we are able to create recordWithNoID record definition in FF Schema in IS6.01 SP2 with out having any problems.

Thanks,

Hi Chris,

Opening this old thread again…

We have an issue for parsing Inbound flatfile Schema using (recordWithNoID)option and getting this error
“com.wm.ui.UiException: com.wm.ff.parse.ParseException: [FFP.0012.0004] Found no valid records”.
We have Record Delimiter (newline) and field Delimiter (~)and it is the Nth Field.

For outbound convertToString (recordWithNoID)working fine with no problems.

My question is will WMFlatFile support recordWithNoID when parsing flatfile.

Here is the sample package i am attaching and a sample flatfile.

TIA,
RMG

RMG

Didn’t run the package but I still have an open case with Tech support on this.
Somewhere in version 6.0.1 recordWithNoID became no longer supported.
The only way that I can now get it to work is using the method Mark mentioned above. Tech support insist that it is not supported.
The problem is I have schemas that run in production fine but if I take the output and use it as a test file in developer against the schema I get the no valid records.
Something has definitely changed but according to the docs it’s not supported as it is not mentioned any where.
The argument I have with tech support is that I have a case where Tech support showed me how to do it in 6.0.1 but this no longer works for some reason.

HTH

Chris,

Thanks for your response.

I don’t understand why the recordWithNoID option is working for convertToString but not for using for convertToValues.So 6.01 partly supporting the recordWithNoID definition.

I too opened an SR with tech support.let see what they will say on this issue.

Regards,

Chris,

Followed Mark method and successfull in parsing the inbound FlatFile and parsed the file which gave us recordWithNoID in the results.

Amd unpdated techsupport to close my SR.

Thanks mark,for your elaborate procedure.

Regards,

I just parsed a flat fixed width file with no record identifiers in the file. When webMethods parses it it gives me a recordWithNoID record array even though I created my own record name in the schema (normally has to match exactly when the file contains record identifiers) and did the set thing as mentioned above. So in order to have this map properly I created a record in the schema called recordWithNoID so that the generated document type would match what I get passed at runtime. It’s all working now (although not ideal - I would like it to use my record name), however in the generated doc type I get 3 nearly identical recordWithNoID arrays under the root node for some reason although this doesn’t appear at runtime.

Will

hey .
just got a same problem with FlatFile structure is there any one who can create a Flat File schema for this kind of record , this faltfile is also uses "recordWithNoId " and “recod Identifier “ both I need to have record Identifier in the middle of the record (R1,R2,R3)
the example goes here …

0000000000010000000002R11SMTAOVA USA 040499999999YYNCON
0000000000010000000002R2TAOVAUK 040499999999YYNCON
0000000000010000000002R353261GGTAOBIG RAIN 04049999YYNCON

this particular sample uses “recordWithNOID” for this first part
“0000000000010000000002” then from R1 (R11SMTAOVA USA….)
i need record Identifier for example “R1” “R2” “R3” like that
because each R has different Structure (Fixed length)and it need to be identified first to get processed .
If you need any more information i will glad to tell you. i will appreciate your responses.

Thank you

KK,

I believe it is not possible,only recordWithNoId is the option and so after parsing the flatfile you have to loop on the records and map the R1,R2,R3 details to a new record create which has R1,R2,R3 structures and do the mapping.But this process is tedious for this kind of file and requirement.

HTH,
RMG>

Why not just specify your record identifier at the position of R1, position 23. It doesn’t have to be at the beginning of the record.

Just a thought.

Thanks RMG and Chris,

RMG:-
If I use recordwithNoID then I will get the whole record set
but this R1 R2 R3 is like a set and this set is repeating like this

0000000000010000000002R11SMTAOVA USA 040499999999YYNCON
0000000000010000000003R2TAOVAUK 040499999999YYNCON
0000000000010000000004R353261GGTAOBIG RAIN 04049999YYNCON

0000000000020000000001R11SMTAOVA USA 040499999999YYNCON
0000000000020000000002R4TAOVAUK 0404GGASVCDYYNCON
0000000000020000000003R753261GG

more over the R1 R2 are not consistent meaning
i may come like R1 R2 R3 R3 one time and next time it may come
R1 R4 R7 RA…(but the header will be present every time 0000000000020000000001)
Each R’s has it own structure defined.

Chris:-

I did tryed that !!
keep record Identifier at 22 (23-1) Position, I created the “RecordIdenifier” and “recordWithNoID” both
and i was able to get R1 record But the record “recordWithNOID” didn’t show up (exp:0000000000010000000002 was missing ).
But If I Just keep record Identifier at 0 Position I was just getting Header not R’s Segment . Its like vice versa… that funny

I was wondering is there any other way to figure this out ?

If you have the record identifier then you don’t need the recordWithNoID. Then name of your record in the schema has to match the value in the record identifier position. Your record names therefore has to be R1, R2…
Define the first fields in each record to handle 000000000010000000002.
In other words treat them as any other field not a separate record.

Thanks,
but the purpose of doing that is to identify the different set of data there are 2 sets of data in this example .

0000000000010000000002R11SMTAOVA USA 040499999999YYNCON
0000000000010000000003R2TAOVAUK 040499999999YYNCON
0000000000010000000004R353261GGTAOBIG RAIN 04049999YYNCON

0000000000020000000001R11SMTAOVA USA 040499999999YYNCON
0000000000020000000002R4TAOVAUK 0404GGASVCDYYNCON
0000000000020000000003R753261GG

my requirement is getting a list of (2 document in this case)

Can we do that with your logic?

No but neither can your data the way it’s structured.
Use the method I mention to get your data into an idata record.
Then you can write whatever logic you like to process the first 2 fields including creating a second idata record object just for those fields.

thanks Chris,
I used your logic to create the Schema and tested it It works fine for
Single record but I found some errors while parsing multiple records.
I will try to give you example :-

001R1000A
001R200B
002R1000A
002R200B

I created the schema and make it multiple occurrences of that
R1 and R2 record But then I testing the schema I am getting

1 occurrences of R1 record (expected is 2 records)
2 occurrences of R2 record

And one error message: [FFP.0011.0011] Unrecognized element

do you have any idea about this error.
Thank you so much for replying.

Try testing with just one record.
001R1000A
001R200B
001R35326

See if your schema works.
If it does, chances are your error has to do with the fact that your file contains more than one record. In that case you’ll have to play around with what’s repeatable and what’s not. At least you’ll know your structure is correct.

I am able to Create Schema for that Flat file.
What I did is, Just define the Dictionary for all R’s and when we create the Flatfile Schema and I just used arrows |->(left arrow) and <-|(right arrow ) ( in the schema )
to insert all variables inside the only one record (R1 has all the R2 ,R3… and soo on )
It took some time to figure out the schema.

Thanks Chris and RMG .

Glad it worked.

Can any one give a sample Fixed length record Flat file.

I need to see how the flat file is looking like.

I have one with me which i created: please see this and correct me if any thing wrong.

Record length: 21
Field delimiter: *
File content :

SampleRecSiva12345

Is this a valid record as per the settings?

Siva,

Don’t cross post.

Siva,

The example shown above is correct…So there will be RecordDefinition set?If no recordfintion in the flatfile then use recordWithNoID this makes parse the flatfile.

HTH,
RMG

Does anyone know how to solve the problem of “3 nearly identical recordWithNoID arrays that appear under the root node when generating the document type from the schema which was used to parse a fixed length flat file which did not have any record identifier.”

Singh,

Please elaborate your query again…

You want recordWithNoID rootnode showing as Array or just document in the DocumentType

HTH,
RMG

RMG,

I’m getting three identical reocrdWithNoID arrays in the DocumentType which is generated from the Flat File Schema. I want only one array/structure. One way to elimate is by using the method ‘Mark Carlson’ had mentioned above. I was wondering if there was any way to use the ‘RecordDefinition’ of ‘recordWithNoID’ specified in the Flat File schema and get only one array of ‘recordWithNoID’ in the DocumentType that is generated from the schema.

Singh,

In the Schema/FlatFileStructure tab click on the recordWithNoID recordDefinition then in the properties tab set Max Repeat=1,this makes in the documentType to show as Document not DocumentList(Arrays).

HTH,
RMG

Thanks for your response, RMG. That is fine. What I want to know is how to get the DocumentType to show just one document/array and not multiple documents/arrays (3) when it is generated from the flat file schema. At this point I don’t care if it is a document or array. Whatever it is, it should be one not three.

Sorry i am not sure that y the doctype is showing three identical reocrdWithNoID arrays.

Is there only one RecordDefintion for your fixed length flatfile?

HTH,
RMG

Yes, only one record definition.

If so this should help,I hope you did this way…

In the Schema/FlatFileStructure tab click on the recordWithNoID recordDefinition then in the properties tab set Max Repeat=1,this makes in the documentType to show as Document not DocumentList(Arrays) which is generated from Schema

HTH,
RMG

Hi All,

We have few records with spaces at the beginning, but convertToValues parsing record ignoring the spaces(parsing without record identifier).

Please help me.

Thanks in Advance
Rao

Hi KRA,

Use skipWhiteSpace parameter setup to false.
Let me know if solve your problem.

Javier thanks for solution. Its working fine.

Hi All,

We have another issue, at the end of file few new line characters are there and convertToValues parsing these new lines too. This is because there is no record identifier.

Please help me to avoid new line characters parsing which are at the end of file.

Thanks in Advance
Rao

Are these 2lines are parsing as UnDefData?

HTH,
RMG

Hello,
I went thru the posts above and tried to make my schema work, but it does not …
Here’s what my flat file structure looks like
individual record - AAAAAAAAXXXXXXXXXYY9999999999999
Trailer record - AAAAAAAA999999999ZZ9999999999999

The trailer record is identified by “999999999ZZ” which starts from position 9.

I created a flat file dictionary, and in the schema referenced the same dictionary.
The record identifier in the schema starts at position 9.

But still i get all the records as “recordsWithNoID”.
Please let me know, what is it that needs to be changed.

Thanks for the help
Shantanu