IP overrides not working

divstands · Post by **divstands** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:24 pm

I added some 42 Input Pattern Ovverides to the Quality Stage. But even after that i do not see any change in the count and the types of Unhandled patterns.

Is there any setting which needs to be done to make IP pverrides work?
(i used ruleset overrides windows for the same. and provisioned all the rules)

stuartjvnorton · Post by **stuartjvnorton** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:42 pm

Is this the v7.5 ruleset that you brought over to v8?
Did you rename the override tables and update the PAT file where it refers to them before you brought it over?

divstands · Post by **divstands** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:33 am

stuartjvnorton wrote:Is this the v7.5 ruleset that you brought over to v8?
Did you rename the override tables and update the PAT file where it refers to them before you brought it over?

1. No i rechecked. The original version of the rule set is 8.0.
2. In the original version the ReadOnly is in state "0" only. Hence the rules/ any specific fiel of the rules should have been editable without renaming.
3. The above is confirmed by the fact that: "i was using a two line format for adding 1 entry into the reference tbale for colonies. The moment i changed it to a single line format, even the originally imported rules worked". Hence it confirms that i do ot need the a "renamed copy of the rules again"

JRodriguez · Post by **JRodriguez** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:16 am

DivStand,

How about posting one of those entries?

As a general rule you would like to convert all unhandled pattern into pattern succesfully handled by the rule .... By the way, you can test the ressult of the Input pattern override functionality in the Rule Management GUI... one at a time is less painful...

divstands · Post by **divstands** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:05 am

JRodriguez wrote:DivStand,

How about posting one of those entries?

As a general rule you would like to convert all unhandled pattern into pattern succesfully handled by the rule .... By the way, you can test the ressult of the Input pattern override functionality in the Rule Management GUI... one at a time is less painful...

^T+^++
+^+
+^+^++
+++Z+^++
+++Z++^++
++<<++++
>T+^++
>T+^++^B
>T++^+LII++
I^I
I^II
I+^++^++++
T^S^<I^++
T^S^S^<++
T+^+
T+^++

JRodriguez · Post by **JRodriguez** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:51 am

Please post the unhandled Pattern, Pattern that you want to convert the unhandled pattern, and what you did to make this happen...

divstands · Post by **divstands** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:48 pm

JRodriguez wrote:Please post the unhandled Pattern, Pattern that you want to convert the unhandled pattern, and what you did to make this happen...

I do not want to treat the unhandled pattern. Please understand that taking one unhandled pattern( specially those which contain a '+') would do unjustice to many input patterns. You would surely agree that if the count for a particular UP is considerable, then there are a lot of IPs associated with it, which would need individual treatment.

JRodriguez · Post by **JRodriguez** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:09 pm

What would you like to do with the Input Pattern that you posted?

Please post the business requirements ... or try to explain in more details what you did so we can be of more help ...

divstands · Post by **divstands** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:21 pm

JRodriguez wrote:What would you like to do with the Input Pattern that you posted?

Please post the business requirements ... or try to explain in more details what you did so we can be of more help ...

Say there are three input Patterns:

>T+^++
>T+^++^B
>T++^+LII++

Now, say after standardization, all the three give same unhandled pattern,

T+

If i take T+ and put a unhandled pattern override, it would not solve the purpose because, the + for all the three Input Patterns(check the underlined) were postioned differently and they were supposed to fall under different address buckets.

ray.wurlod · Post by **ray.wurlod** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:22 pm

Why have you suddenly introduced unhandled pattern overrides into the story? When do you want the overrides to occur - as input records are being processed or after standardization has occurred? I would guess that T+ is not unhandled in your case.

stuartjvnorton · Post by **stuartjvnorton** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:21 am

divstands wrote:Hence it confirms that i do ot need the a "renamed copy of the rules again"

My query was related to whether it was a v7.5 ruleset.
Like I said elsewhere, the format for naming the override files changed between versions.

eg: the Input Pattern Override file for the MXADDR ruleset would be called MXADDRIP.TBL in v7.5. In v8, it is called MXADDR.IPO.

This may have caused an issue, and hence why I asked the question.

As for the unhandled pattern stuff you were talking about, maybe you need to modify the PAT file itself.
Depending on what the data is and where it's supposed to go, a few tweaks on the way through could have it nicely falling through into the pattern it is supposed to be in.
Or maybe it's junk and is supposed to be dropped.

Group by both the input patterns and output patterns, and then look at actual examples of the most common ones. You'll soon start to see the issues.

divstands · Post by **divstands** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:36 am

ray.wurlod wrote:Why have you suddenly introduced unhandled pattern overrides into the story? When do you want the overrides to occur - as input records are being processed or after standardization has occurred? I ...

It is not sudden Ray, but the answer to a question. Please check.

divstands · Post by **divstands** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:40 am

stuartjvnorton wrote:
divstands wrote:Hence it confirms that i do ot need the a "renamed copy of the rules again"
My query was related to whether it was a v7.5 ruleset.
Like I said elsewhere, the format for naming the override files changed between versions.

eg: the Input Pattern Override file for the MXADDR ruleset would be called MXADDRIP.TBL in v7.5. In v8, it is called MXADDR.IPO.

This may have caused an issue, and hence why I asked the question.

As for the unhandled pattern stuff you were talking about, maybe you need to modify the PAT file itself.
Depending on what the data is and where it's supposed to go, a few tweaks on the way through could have it nicely falling through into the pattern it is supposed to be in.
Or maybe it's junk and is supposed to be dropped.

Group by both the input patterns and output patterns, and then look at actual examples of the most common ones. You'll soon start to see the issues.

Hey Stuart

Yeah i understand that. Am i am doing same. Only that it becomes very complicated when there are some 26 dictionary elements for an Address in a ruleset.