DSXchange

Hi All,

I am getting the following error from the transformer
I am using a left outer join and checking the value of a hardcoded field X1 of secondary link. I have used NullToEmpty function while checking the value.

The job runs fine, but gives this warning. Where as, I have used it exactly same way at other place and it doesn't give any such warning.

Where are you doing your left join? If in SQL, have you declared the X1 column as nullable in DataStage?

I am doing left outer join using Join Stage. X1 is non-key field from secondary link.

Are you renaming from "input0Int8nLDD_X1" to "X1"?
Is the source field Not Null?

Is X1 nullable in your source link?

Probably you have to apply the function NullToEmpty function only on Null values.... so check if the value is null then apply NullToEmpty

So yours derrivation for the input should be .....

If IsNull(%inputcol%) Then NullToEmpty(%inputcol%) Else ''

kumar_s wrote:Are you renaming from "input0Int8nLDD_X1" to "X1"?
Is the source field Not Null? ...

Hi Kumar, I am not renaming the field input0Int8n_X1 (it was generated internally within datastage)

ArndW wrote:Is X1 nullable in your source link?

Hi, X1 is nullable in source (secondary link)

creatingfusion wrote:
Probably you have to apply the function NullToEmpty function only on Null values.... so check if the value is null then apply NullToEmpty

So yours derrivation for the input should be .....

If IsNull(%inputcol%) Then NullToEmpty(%inputcol%) Else ''

This field is hardcoded in middle [metadata is nullable through all upstream jobs]. Looks like whenever nullable the field is getting empty string assigned to i. I have checked for the metadata definitions right from the origin, but is nullable everywhere and there is no provision to change the default values of metadata.

Turn on $APT_PRINT_SCHEMAS and look at each link's schema to see if what DataStage has defined and what you think is defined are identical.

Turn on $OSH_PRINT_SCHEMAS and look at each link's schema to see if what DataStage has defined and what you think is defined are identical.

OK, I get the point :D