Optional Names Handling is disabled

[sigma]

Hi
When I copy the usaddr ruleset and just use it as is without customizing it, I see that the optional names handling is disabled

I changed the permission of the files under the quality folder to match the USADDR files

Any reasons why it is disabled.

Has anyone run into this before

[rjdickson]

Hi
When I copy the usaddr ruleset and just use it as is without customizing it, I see that the optional names handling is disabled

I changed the permission of the files under the quality folder to match the USADDR files

Any reasons why it is disabled.

Has anyone run into this before

The 'optional names handling' is for xxNAME rule sets only. That option does not apply to Address rule sets.

Hope that helps!
Robert

[sigma]

Yes it helped

I copied a USNAME rule set and tried it and sure enough worked

We can mark this as closed

[ray.wurlod]

The original author is the one who marks threads as Resolved using the green button at the top of the screen.

[sigma]

Thanks Ray, will mark it as complete but I have one more question before I mark it complete

I copied the GBNAME rule set and gave it a custom name as in GBNAME_cp_test

Did not change any other aspect of the ruleset and when I use it I do get the optional name handling options enabled for me

But when I rename it just once again say to GBNAME_cp_test to GBNAME_CRM for example and when I use it the optional name handling becomes disabled

Is there any reason why it gets disabled.

[stuartjvnorton]

Hi sigma,

That sounds like a strange one, for sure.
I would have put money on QS disabling the Optional Names Handling with both of the ruleset names you had.
I've done a similar thing with AUNAME (imaginatively called AUNAMESN), and the optional names handling was disabled for it too until I changed it.

From what I can gather, the Standardize Process dialog just has some hard-coded logic to enable or disable it based on the name of the selected ruleset.
It might just have been a glitch and you got lucky that once. Rename it back and see how it goes.


One other thing you might find if you try to use GBNAME_CRM in a job.
It seems that if the name of the ruleset is longer than 8 chars, it will work in the rule tester but fail with some strange error message if you try to run a job that uses it.
This happened for me in 8.0.1, but maybe they've fixed it since.

Cheers,
Stuart.

[ray.wurlod]

I recall something similar, which leads me to suspect that the trigger to enable name handling is that the rule set name ends in "NAME", for example "SNNAME".

[stuartjvnorton]

I recall something similar, which leads me to suspect that the trigger to enable name handling is that the rule set name ends in "NAME", for example "SNNAME". ...

Yeah, forgot to mention that I renamed it to SNAUNAME to get it to work (the point of the whole post)...

[sigma]

Hi

Great.. as I renamed it to SCNAME to be consistent with NAME being in the end and it seemd to work

great job.... I will try to see what happens lenght of the ruleset name

Just curious if this is document anywhere as I tried to find it on the IBM site just did not find anything or may be I am looking at the wrong spot...

Anyways thanks a lot folks... I am greatful to have a support like this


Regards

[stuartjvnorton]

Hi sigma,

Don't know that it is documented. Maybe in some IBM knowledge base somewhere, but I haven't seen it. (I have trouble finding stuff there too, to be honest)

I just ran into it once. Tested ok, job compiled ok, but strange error when I tried to run it. Provisioning, etc wouldn't fix it.
Eventually I thought to rename it back to an 8 char name, provisioned etc and it then worked as expected.

[rjdickson]

Hi all,

To completely close the loop on this, IBM has posted a technote related to this topic: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.w ... SBF&mync=R