| Author |
Message
|
| sudaltsov |
 Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 7:55 am Post subject: FTEOutput node and MRM: no way? |
 |
|
Voyager
Joined: 02 May 2012
Posts: 82
|
Hello Everybody
I am trying to use FTEOutput with MRM parser (the document is SWIFT format). FTE node fails with exception. If I reset the message to BLOB - it works just fine. Does that mean that FTEOutput cannot deal with MRM? The version is 7.
Thank you |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| next |
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 02 May 2010
Posts: 75
|
| Even we had the same issue. We changed it to BLOB after validating the message using ASBITSTREAM function. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sudaltsov |
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 02 May 2012
Posts: 82
|
| Thank you! It would be nice to find something in IBM docs.. For the record, the error is "Invalid Wire format retreived." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
I would be very surprised if there is *any* node shipped with the product that does not support *all* the parsers.
I am constantly amazed at users who say things like this:
| Quote: |
| For the record, the error is "Invalid Wire format retreived." |
Please tell me : have you even *looked* for any more information on this error. The text that you have quoted is a tiny part of the information in that error message. Every error message emitted by message broker contains a summary line ( you quoted that ), an explanation of the problem, and usually some text telling you what to do about it.
Please look for that information, and tell us what you find. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sudaltsov |
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 02 May 2012
Posts: 82
|
| I can provide any details required. Again, for the record, the same MRM tree, being supplied to plain MQ node, works fine and generates valid message. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
| Quote: |
| I can provide any details required |
Well I have already asked for some details, so I await your response with interest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sudaltsov |
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 02 May 2012
Posts: 82
|
| After some playing with RCD nodes I managed to make FTE node consume MRM tree. Still do not quite understand why it did not work before. Probably, will need more experiments. Anyway, thank you for the help! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| sudaltsov wrote: |
| After some playing with RCD nodes I managed to make FTE node consume MRM tree. |
What "playing"?
| sudaltsov wrote: |
| Still do not quite understand why it did not work before. |
Clearly, and of course nor do we.
| sudaltsov wrote: |
| Probably, will need more experiments. |
No, what is needed is the full error details you were asked for 8 days ago! Either there's something wrong with your configuration and this "solution" you've stumbled on could collapse under you with any system change, or you've highlighted a weakness in the product which you need to bring to light.
| sudaltsov wrote: |
| Anyway, thank you for the help! |
It was nothing. Literally. You've told us nothing and got nothing in return. All you've posted is that it didn't work for some unexplained reason, and you've fixed it in some unexplained way.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sudaltsov |
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 02 May 2012
Posts: 82
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| What "playing"? |
What was changed is that instead of multiple files FTE now produces single file. "Record is Whole File" was changed to "Record is Delimited Data".
| Vitor wrote: |
| It was nothing. Literally. You've told us nothing and got nothing in return. All you've posted is that it didn't work for some unexplained reason, and you've fixed it in some unexplained way. |
Once I have time, I will try to reproduce the issue and report the full error details. Just as a favor for the people who spent their time reading my stupid report missing substantial information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sudaltsov |
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 02 May 2012
Posts: 82
|
As promised, here is the exception. Perfectly valid MRM for SWIFT MT942. "Record as Whole File" mode of FTEOutput node.
| Code: |
ExceptionList
RecoverableException
File:CHARACTER:/build/S700_P/src/DataFlowEngine/ImbDataFlowNode.cpp
Line:INTEGER:1073
Function:CHARACTER:ImbDataFlowNode::createExceptionList
Type:CHARACTER:ComIbmFileInputNode
Name:CHARACTER:DDAMT942toSAA#FCMComposite_1_15
Label:CHARACTER:DDAMT942toSAA.File Input
Catalog:CHARACTER:BIPmsgs
Severity:INTEGER:3
Number:INTEGER:2230
Text:CHARACTER:Node throwing exception
RecoverableException
File:CHARACTER:/build/S700_P/src/DataFlowEngine/ImbComputeNode.cpp
Line:INTEGER:489
Function:CHARACTER:ImbComputeNode::evaluate
Type:CHARACTER:ComIbmComputeNode
Name:CHARACTER:DDAMT942toSAA#FCMComposite_1_16
Label:CHARACTER:DDAMT942toSAA.Split ATandD to MT942
Catalog:CHARACTER:BIPmsgs
Severity:INTEGER:3
Number:INTEGER:2230
Text:CHARACTER:Caught exception and rethrowing
RecoverableException
File:CHARACTER:/build/S700_P/src/DataFlowEngine/ImbRdl/ImbRdlStatementGroup.cpp
Line:INTEGER:641
Function:CHARACTER:SqlStatementGroup::execute
Type:CHARACTER:ComIbmComputeNode
Name:CHARACTER:DDAMT942toSAA#FCMComposite_1_16
Label:CHARACTER:DDAMT942toSAA.Split ATandD to MT942
Catalog:CHARACTER:BIPmsgs
Severity:INTEGER:3
Number:INTEGER:2488
Text:CHARACTER:Error detected, rethrowing
Insert
Type:INTEGER:5
Text:CHARACTER:.DDAMT942toSAA_Split_ATandD_to_MT942.Main
Insert
Type:INTEGER:5
Text:CHARACTER:54.4
Insert
Type:INTEGER:5
Text:CHARACTER:PROPAGATE TO TERMINAL 'out1' FINALIZE DEFAULT DELETE NONE;
RecoverableException
File:CHARACTER:/build/S700_P/src/DataFlowEngine/TemplateNodes/ImbOutputTemplateNode.cpp
Line:INTEGER:318
Function:CHARACTER:ImbOutputTemplateNode::processMessageAssemblyToFailure
Type:CHARACTER:ComIbmFTEOutputNode
Name:CHARACTER:DDAMT942toSAA#FCMComposite_1_7
Label:CHARACTER:DDAMT942toSAA.FTE Output
Catalog:CHARACTER:BIPmsgs
Severity:INTEGER:3
Number:INTEGER:2230
Text:CHARACTER:Caught exception and rethrowing
ParserException
File:CHARACTER:/build/S700_P/src/MTI/MTIforBroker/MtiImbParser2/MtiImbSyntaxElement.cpp
Line:INTEGER:595
Function:CHARACTER:CpContext::loadWorker
Type:CHARACTER:
Name:CHARACTER:
Label:CHARACTER:
Catalog:CHARACTER:BIPmsgs
Severity:INTEGER:3
Number:INTEGER:5136
Text:CHARACTER:Invalid Wire format retreived.
Insert
Type:INTEGER:5
Text:CHARACTER: |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
Google found this for me:
| Quote: |
BIP5136
Invalid Wire Format Identifier <insert_1>.
Severity
20 : Error
Explanation
When processing an MRM message the broker requires a valid wire format identifier.
Response
Check that you have packaged the message correctly and set the correct message properties then resubmit the message. |
Do you see what I mean about looking for more information?
Now please check your facts. Changing from 'Delimited data' to 'Whole File' should not affect whether this particular error is emitted. What happens if you repeat the experiment now?
If you can still make it go wrong, then please post a user trace showing the error. It might give you a clue about what is going wrong. If you could also supply a trace of InputRoot.Properties that would be great too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sudaltsov |
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 02 May 2012
Posts: 82
|
All I did is changed the setting from "Delimited" back to "Whole file" - and got that error back (that is how I got it today, but it is the same I reported originally).
Just tried again, changed back and forth. "Delimited" is ok, "Whole file" gives exception. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
OK - thanks for checking. Clearly, the 'Whole file' option is causing the MRM parser to be invoked by the FTE node, whereas the 'Delimited' option is not.
The error is from the MRM parser. It has been given a Message Format property of '' ( the empty string ). That *might* be a defect in the FTE node - perhaps it is not passing the Message Format property to the parser. Another possibility is that you have not set the Message Format property on the FTE node, but the problem only becomes apparent when you use the 'Whole File' option.
If you can prove that your flow is able to parse the message using the settings on the input node ( thus proving that you have set Message Format correctly ), then I think you should open a PMR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
OK - thanks for checking. Clearly, the 'Whole file' option is causing the MRM parser to be invoked by the FTE node, whereas the 'Delimited' option is not.
The error is from the MRM parser. It has been given a Message Format property of '' ( the empty string ). That *might* be a defect in the FTE node - perhaps it is not passing the Message Format property to the parser. Another possibility is that you have not set the Message Format property on the FTE node, but the problem only becomes apparent when you use the 'Whole File' option.
If you can prove that your flow is able to parse the message using the settings on the input node ( thus proving that you have set Message Format correctly ), then I think you should open a PMR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sudaltsov |
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 02 May 2012
Posts: 82
|
| I will double-check the parseability of the message. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
