BizTalk Mapper vs Attributes with Defaults….Schema Elements with an attribute having a default value are ALWAYS generated

 

‘Challenge’:

Schema Elements with an attribute having a default value are ALWAYS generated, this is because of the default mapping behavior.

Structure of this post:

What is the problem

Attributes with a Default Value are generated even though the element is optional. Consider this schema, which has an Data element.

image

The element ‘OptionalAttributeDefault’ is optional (minoccurs:0) and has an attribute with a Default value: ‘LINUX’

image

The element ‘RequiredAttributeDefault’ is mandatory (minoccurs:1) and has an attribute with a Default value: ‘CAT141.12’

image

The element ‘RequiredDefaultValue’ is mandatory (minoccurs:1) and has a default value: ‘Test’

image

When we execute the map which does not map the ‘Data’ element like this:

image

The XML output generated is:

<ns0:Destination xmlns:ns0="http://AttributeTest.Schema2">
    <Name>Name_0</Name>
    <ID>ID_0</ID>
    <Data>
        <OptionalAttributeDefault Type="LINUX"></OptionalAttributeDefault>
        <RequiredAttributeDefault Type="CAT141.12"></RequiredAttributeDefault>
        <RequiredDefaultValue>Test</RequiredDefaultValue>
    </Data>
</ns0:Destination>

Issue: All [DATA] elements are generated, optional elements with an attribute default as well

 

Why is this

This is because the .btm file is configured with a behavior to always generate the default values, even for optional elements.

Although we can state that the default values have to be removed, that is not always possible. I came across this issue when implementing UBL (from OASIS).

 

How to overcome this

We can overcome this be altering the behavior of the map, this can be done by opening the .BTM file and navigate to the attribute: ‘GenerateDefaultFixedNodes’, which is default “YES”.

Before making any changes, we have to understand which options there are:

  • GenerateDefaultFixedNodes=”Yes” : default behavior
  • GenerateDefaultFixedNodes=”” : this will generate no elements if the attribute has a value, even when the element is mandatory!

Note: you can set the value to whatever (no, false, etc) however when you save the map it will become “”

Example result:

<sns0:Destination xmlns:ns0="http://AttributeTest.Schema2">
  <Name>Name_0</Name>
  <ID>ID_0</ID>
</ns0:Destination>

Issue: No [DATA] element is generated

  • GenerateDefaultFixedNodes=”RequiredDefaults” : this will generate elements with minoccurs=1 in case it has attributes with a default value

Example result:

<ns0:Destination xmlns:ns0="http://AttributeTest.Schema2">
    <Name>Name_0</Name>
    <ID>ID_0</ID>
    <Data>
        <RequiredDefaultValue>Test</RequiredDefaultValue>
    </Data>
</ns0:Destination>

Issue: results are still not valid (Required elements with default attribute value are not created, thus validation fails

 

This means that even though you can configure the behavior of the mapping there is no perfect solution. You either have:

  • to modify the default values and use the default behavior
  • have to ensure that elements/attributes are set (you can not rely on any of the default attributes anymore since elements are not created)

 

Since this is quite important, I’ve created a sample project that has a map for each setting, and a readme.txt with information about the results.

In the next post I will explain how to change the ‘template’ used when creating maps.

HTH,

Sander Nefs

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Azure implementation guidelines

In My post ‘ Service Bus Management ’ I pointed out a way of implementing a DTAP strategy for managing the Service Bus environment. There’s now a great post available from Microsoft which goes into more detail about other aspects of managing the Azure subscriptions and other artefacts which is quite useful when setting up your Azure environments. Follow this link to the ‘Azure Implementation Guidelines’ HTH, Sander
Read more

Focus and innovation - recap of the last 2 years

It's been a long time since my last post. Hereby a partial explanation for that, with the note that this blog will remain active for the purpose of being a resource for historical references. My IT career started with programming, and adventures within holland, as well as overseas. When I realised programming is something you can specify, I figured that providing added value is crucial for a long term career and decided to focus on process centric roles. I started with webservice integration and eventually from that to process integration using BizTalk. The great feeling when discussing high level processes and implementing solutions within days, even highly scalable and interfacing with LOB systems is great. After several years of implementing solutions like these, I started questioning if all of this work was justified by the business case, if the solution was actually contributing, if the choices had been valid. In other words, I needed to understand the choices made. When...
Read more

BizTalk Pub/sub vs Topics based routing–discussion

My colleagues and I had a brief discussion about the subject ‘Topics’ and what it brings… Do you all agree/disagree with the following statement: topic-based pub-sub messaging doesn’t really exist in BizTalk “In my opinion; I disagree, as BizTalk offers the following 'out-of-the-box' • Message Routing (f.e build in context properties like message type, trading partner, operation etc) • Content Routing (f.e. promoted properties, message inspection in orchestrations/pipelines icw orchestration logic)” My colleague Rene Brauwers Here my 2 cents…. I agree that it exists...however the current offerings in BizTalk are tightly coupled, making the usage far from perfect. When doing content based routing on custom fields (promoted properties), you will be making the solution message-coupled; Your custom message property schema is deployed, and the message filter on these fields have a direct relationship with this property schema. Making any change to this schema will g...
Read more