b Bedeoan
on

 

Hi all,

Wouldn't be usefull a cross-check for ARMCD and SETCD values between DM and TX?

Currently I can have one  set of values for ARMCD/SETCD in DM.xpt and different ones in TX.xpt and no consistency error/warning is reported...

Thanks!

 

Forums: Validation Rule Suggestions

s Sergiy
on January 10, 2013

Sure. The new rule should be something like "All SETCD/ARMCD values in DM domain should be populated in terms of SETCD/TXVAL values from TX domain records, where TXVAL='ARMCD'"

Thanks for your check suggestion!

Kind Regards, 

Sergiy

b Bedeoan
on January 11, 2013

Actually, you could break the rule in 2:

1. "All SETCD values in DM domain should be populated in terms of SETCD values from TX domain records" and the other way around. SETCD appears as SEND variable in TX.

2. "All ARMCD values in DM domain should be populated in terms of TXVAL values from TX domain records, where TXPARMCD='ARMCD'". ARMCD appears as trial set parameter and its content feeds TXVAL when TXPARMCD contains  ARMCD.

 

s Sergiy
on January 11, 2013

What about a combination of two values SETCD/ARMCD?

We need this check anyway, and it also covers your two checks.

Thanks,

Sergiy 

Want a demo?

Let’s Talk.

We're eager to share and ready to listen.

Cookie Policy

Pinnacle 21 uses cookies to make our site easier for you to use. By continuing to use this website, you agree to our use of cookies. For more info visit our Privacy Policy.