September 28, 2017 at 7:20 am
Thom A - Thursday, September 28, 2017 7:14 AMPhil Parkin - Thursday, September 28, 2017 6:59 AMThom A - Thursday, September 28, 2017 6:55 AMThis is the other idea I put forward earlier. Using an expression was fine at first (sometimes I prefer this method as if a file is missed you may not want to load them), when things were simply the date, but seems the goal posts have moved since. 🙂So you did ... I only skimmed the thread and missed that. I always use this method, on the assumption that if a file is resident in my 'ToBeProcessed' folder, then it needs to be processed 🙂
Generally I agree. I do, however, have a daily file from an Insurer that is cumulative. If, for whatever reason, the server doesn't run the file on that day, the last thing i want to do is run it the following day, as I might then overwrite the previous. I learnt that lesson the hard way, so I'm little bit of a skeptical now on completely relying on simply looping. 🙂
Got it. Can you add logic to ensure that, if multiple files are found, they are processed in the correct order? If not, how about adding logic to curtail processing with an e-mail alert if more than one file is found in the queue?
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Martin Rees
You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.
Stan Laurel
September 28, 2017 at 7:24 am
Phil Parkin - Thursday, September 28, 2017 7:20 AMGot it. Can you add logic to ensure that, if multiple files are found, they are processed in the correct order? If not, how about adding logic to curtail processing with an e-mail alert if more than one file is found in the queue?
I did consider it, yes, however, as the file name is always known, I went with the "absolute" answer instead. I don't mind e-mail alerts, but I'm very fond of making things automated. if i can make sure it works by simply telling it "This is the file, and only this file" rather than "If you find 2 files, don't do anything; I'll handle it instead", I'm in favour of the former. 🙂
Thom~
Excuse my typos and sometimes awful grammar. My fingers work faster than my brain does.
Larnu.uk
September 28, 2017 at 7:29 am
Thom A - Thursday, September 28, 2017 7:24 AMPhil Parkin - Thursday, September 28, 2017 7:20 AMGot it. Can you add logic to ensure that, if multiple files are found, they are processed in the correct order? If not, how about adding logic to curtail processing with an e-mail alert if more than one file is found in the queue?I did consider it, yes, however, as the file name is always known, I went with the "absolute" answer instead. I don't mind e-mail alerts, but I'm very fond of making things automated. if i can make sure it works by simply telling it "This is the file, and only this file" rather than "If you find 2 files, don't do anything; I'll handle it instead", I'm in favour of the former. 🙂
Does this not fall apart if you want to process file X a day later than usual? Your method would not find file X and you'd be forced to somehow override the expression or interfere with the file name.
Apologies to the OP for thread hijacking.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Martin Rees
You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.
Stan Laurel
September 28, 2017 at 7:41 am
Phil Parkin - Thursday, September 28, 2017 7:29 AMDoes this not fall apart if you want to process file X a day later than usual? Your method would not find file X and you'd be forced to somehow override the expression or interfere with the file name.
Apologies to the OP for thread hijacking.
No, because the file for that day is cumulative. So, data from the previous day could have incorrect if financials have since been updated. Loading the latest file will always update our system with the latest figures, including any that weren't loaded (for what ever reason).
Thom~
Excuse my typos and sometimes awful grammar. My fingers work faster than my brain does.
Larnu.uk
Viewing 4 posts - 16 through 18 (of 18 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply