Originally posted by: Mr wtx

I am getting the following warnings when i am analysing the type tree.
I have the following types in the RECORD.And each item of that record is unbound.

text
number
text
number

COMPONENT 1 may not be distinguishable from COMPONENT 2 that may
follow in TYPE 'RECORD Root'

What could be the reason?
#IBM-Websphere-Transformation-Extender
#IBMSterlingTransformationExtender
#DataExchange

Originally posted by: PradeepV.B.

Hi,

Are the items in the group have fixed len?

I have attached a sample type tree which has fields in the same order that you have and they are of same type.

make sure that the fields are of fixed length. if they are not then set the padding and then analyze.

regards.
#IBM-Websphere-Transformation-Extender
#IBMSterlingTransformationExtender
#DataExchange

Originally posted by: maddysam

Define the delimiter property for the RECORD in the type tree.
#IBMSterlingTransformationExtender
#IBM-Websphere-Transformation-Extender
#DataExchange

Originally posted by: vijji_WTX

COMPONENT 1 may not be distinguishable from COMPONENT 2 that may
follow in TYPE 'RECORD Root'

As per my understanding, this warning comes only if you have same kind of items ,same properties but different name. It's WTX suggestion not to use same kind if properties for items. we can use same item many times. Anyway..it is finally a warning..we can ignore
#IBM-Websphere-Transformation-Extender
#IBMSterlingTransformationExtender
#DataExchange

Originally posted by: TarunB

You can possibly ignore this warning if the tree is to be used as output only, because you are effectively forcing the creation of data in that format anyway.

If the tree is to be used for input validation, then the TX engine will not be able to distinguish one field from another within the Record group, and you will either end up with errors or mis-alignment of data.

It is not specifically related to the 'same kind of items, same properties etc.' in a group.

Whatever the case, it appears that you have not completely defined the properties of the group - as Sam says above you most likely need a delimiter, seeing as you say that the fields are "unbound".
#IBM-Websphere-Transformation-Extender
#DataExchange
#IBMSterlingTransformationExtender

Originally posted by: Mr wtx

i have taken implicit delimited for the record as there are few items which may repeat and needs functional map.I have attached the type tree .It is giving thousands of warnings.If i change to explicit all the warnings are missing and i am getting some errors.I have deliberately chosen implicit as i donot want delimiter to appear for missing components.Pl. suggest me the changes to eliminate these warnings.
#DataExchange
#IBM-Websphere-Transformation-Extender
#IBMSterlingTransformationExtender

Originally posted by: TarunB

> 15000 warnings! I don't have that much time, not unless you're willing to pay my consultancy fees.

Anyway, some general advice:-

The File level is usually Implicit. Where the File contains multiple groups, you would need to define a delimiter/terminator between them so that they are distinguishable.

Record delimiters with an Implicit setting does not make sense. If you don't want delimiters appearing then use Track Content with the delimiter setting. However, I fail to see how your target application/user will know what the data contains because you are not sticking to a structured format - none of your output fields are identifiable in any way.

The errors raised when you used Explicit are due to the 6 fields with an open range (s) rather than (0:1) in PERFORM_SVLN_RECORD. None of the other F fields are like this so I'm wondering if you have simply forgotten to set the range for these 6.
#DataExchange
#IBMSterlingTransformationExtender
#IBM-Websphere-Transformation-Extender

Originally posted by: Mr wtx

You are right.But when i define the edit record to explicit the warnings came down to 1000.I deliberately defined those 6 fields as (s) times because i have to write a function map there for those fields as they repeat for several times.The structure is correct.But the question is can't we have a range (s) times for few items besides keeping the record as explicit?
#IBM-Websphere-Transformation-Extender
#DataExchange
#IBMSterlingTransformationExtender