Ignore Optional Fields in File Content Conversion

[vijay_ravindran]

Hi,

Background- I am working on a Proxy to File scenario. The file content conversion is based on fixed length fields. This interface is applicable to different market regions and there are slight field structure variations between markets. I have created all the fields in the structure, thinking i can disable the fields in the different mappings for different market regions. So, when i am not mapping an optional field, the node doesn't get created, but according to the File Content Conversion parameters wherein i have given Record.fieldFixedLengths, fixed length gets picked up by the next field which may cause a communication channel error.

Issue Facing- I need the optional fields to be ignored in FCC if the there is no value mapped to it. And if there is value which is coming to the optional field, the FCC should consider that field. Is there any FCC parameter which i can use to mitigate this problem? Or do i need to create totally different interfaces? Has anyone faced similar issues?

Thanks in advance for the replies. Please let me know if anything is unclear or more information is needed.

[former_member184720 · Accepted solution]

Creating a common structure for different markets is fine but it's good to handle file conversion using separate communication channels.

I don't think we have any parameter to ignore blank fields and even if we have one, it would be really difficult to debug(for error handling)

I would suggest you to go with common structure and disable the fields in mapping but do create separate receiver channels for FCC.

[vijay_ravindran · Accepted solution]

Thanks for the quick reply Hareesh.

I created different communication channels, but i would also have to create different receiver agreements. But since the source system, target system and service interface are all the same, it is not allowing me to do so. Any suggestions?

[former_member184720 · Accepted solution]

Create different operation mapping i.e. service interface but reuse the same structure though. Any problem in doing that?

[vijay_ravindran · Accepted solution]

That works, Thanks Hareesh!