BizTalk Quirks –BizTalk mapper

 

Several weird issues I’ve encountered have made my think about a special blog theme ‘BizTalk Quircks’. The first one is the BizTalk mapper in 2010. As blogged earlier, there are some behavior differences, but to my opinion as well a few bugs. As I’ve not spent a lot of time reproducing the issues but have met colleagues with the same issues, here some issues you might encounter;

A link to a functoid that is removed remains active in the functoid parameters

This means that it isn't possible to create a new link, the parameter has to be manually removed in the mapper.

Creating several links to a functoid (with e.g. 6 params) lets the mapper loose count

I had a functoid with 6 parameters, filled them all, but somehow the link of parameter 6 created a void parameter 7, this meant i got a validation. When i removed the parameter in the functoid it was all fine and dandy.

Creating a 'new' message (SalesOrder = SalesOrder) using a map doesn't filll all the values

I sometimes created new messages (when i had no input) by creating a map that mapped the same schema Input=Output, just to fill in the values. This doesn't work in 2010 anymore, i now always have to resort to creating a msg from scratch (Xml assignment).

Please add info, tips, steps etc!! Hopefully enough to post bugs, otherwise precautionary steps for other colleagues.

 

Signed,

Captain Quirk Bedroefde emoticon

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a partial explanation for that, with the note that this blog will remain active for the purpose of being a resource for historical references.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