| Author |
Message
|
| bdaoust |
 Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:21 am Post subject: Referencing Message Tree In Filter Node |
 |
|
Centurion
Joined: 23 Sep 2010
Posts: 130
|
Hello everyone:
I'm calling a web service and getting a response back. In a FILTER node, I want to be able to reference a field within that response, but having trouble doing so.
The response looks somewhat like :
| Code: |
Message
Properties
HTTPReponseHeader
HTTPRequestHeader
SOAP
Content
Header
Body
ValidateForLineOffReponse
ValidateForLineOffResult
IsLineOffAvail (this is a boolvalue)
|
So in the FILTER esql right after the SOAP Request node, I'm doing
| Code: |
IF Root.Message.SOAP.Body.ValidateForLineOffReponse.ValidateForLineOffResult.IsLineOffAvail is TRUE THEN
RETURN TRUE;
ELSE
RETURN FALSE;
END IF; |
Doesn't seem I'm picking up the IsLineOffAvailvalue, it's null, but I know by using the debugger, it does have a value.
Any idea?
Thanks,
Brian |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| You're not using namespaces. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:30 am Post subject: Re: Referencing Message Tree In Filter Node |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
Is the element in a namespace the debugger isn't showing but the ESQL is honouring?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bdaoust |
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 23 Sep 2010
Posts: 130
|
| Code: |
Message
Properties
HTTPReponseHeader
HTTPRequestHeader
SOAP
Content
Header
Body
ValidateForLineOffReponse
ValidateForLineOffResult
IsLineOffAvail (this is a boolvalue) |
Under ValidateForLineOffResponse there is
xmlns with a value of http://abc.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| bdaoust wrote: |
Under ValidateForLineOffResponse there is
xmlns with a value of http://abc.com |
Exactly.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bdaoust |
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 23 Sep 2010
Posts: 130
|
Thank you. I was able to get the correct syntax after doing a trace.
I can't get my head around why you have to explicitly refer to the namespace for each element you are going after. I would think if they are all siblings, you shouldn't have to.
Have a great night. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| bdaoust wrote: |
| I can't get my head around why you have to explicitly refer to the namespace for each element you are going after. I would think if they are all siblings, you shouldn't have to. |
Because that's how Broker builds the message tree, and how you have to access it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| bdaoust wrote: |
| I can't get my head around why you have to explicitly refer to the namespace for each element you are going after. I would think if they are all siblings, you shouldn't have to. |
Each element of an XML document is in a namespace or not. If the element is not in a namespace (like ValidateForLineOfResponse) then it's called ValidateForLineOfResponse. If it's in a namespace, then it's called abc.com:IsLineOffAvail and that's the name you have to use. If it's a sibling of another element that happens to be in the same namespace, so what? You can mix and match namespaces in a document; they exist so you can have 2 distinct elements foo.com:jim & bar.com:jim in the same document.
This is W3C not broker.
Also, the way you've written it, the 3 elements in the body are not siblings, but children of each other.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
