Question
Fifth Third Bank Bank
US
Last activity: 19 Apr 2018 14:59 EDT
The data type for Execute parameter and associated proxy is incomplete in automation XML
In our team's project, we have extracted a System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary data structure from a script component. In the parent automation, the output of the script is extracted into a proxy (see attached image "DataStructure-1a.jpg"). When trying to use this as an input parameter in another automation (see "DataStructure-1b.jpg" and "DataStructure-2.jpg"), we get an error relating to a null parameter for the dictionary. We have found by looking at the automations' XML that the type attributes seem to be incomplete compared to the original shown in images DataStructure-4.jpg and DataStructure-3.jpg, respectively. We also found experimentally, that we could get it to work by editing the XML, and completing the type attributes.
The trouble is that the "fix" is not always reliable. I suspect that it has to do with the different level of detail seen in the attributes. Sometimes the type definition is abbreviated, and sometime more complete. For example, see the following XML snippet, and image "DataStructure-3.jpg."
In our team's project, we have extracted a System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary data structure from a script component. In the parent automation, the output of the script is extracted into a proxy (see attached image "DataStructure-1a.jpg"). When trying to use this as an input parameter in another automation (see "DataStructure-1b.jpg" and "DataStructure-2.jpg"), we get an error relating to a null parameter for the dictionary. We have found by looking at the automations' XML that the type attributes seem to be incomplete compared to the original shown in images DataStructure-4.jpg and DataStructure-3.jpg, respectively. We also found experimentally, that we could get it to work by editing the XML, and completing the type attributes.
The trouble is that the "fix" is not always reliable. I suspect that it has to do with the different level of detail seen in the attributes. Sometimes the type definition is abbreviated, and sometime more complete. For example, see the following XML snippet, and image "DataStructure-3.jpg."
Value="System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary`2[[System.String, mscorlib],[System.String, mscorlib]], mscorlib"
Value="System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary`2[[System.String, mscorlib, Version= Proprietary information hidden, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089],[System.String, mscorlib, Version= Proprietary information hidden, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089]]"
My question is twofold: Is there a better way other than editing the XML? That can be confusing and error prone.
If no alternative exists, what are the guidelines for filling in the above attributes with the abbreviated version, versus the more complete version discussed above?
I'm using Visual Studio 2015 with the Pega plugin v. 8.0.1081
Pegasystems Inc.
US
Hi Michael,
I am checking with the development team, but my experience is that we do not handle collections in System.Collections.Generic well. I am not sure if it is an issue with serialization or the fact that we need a type at design time. I would recommend using a collection in System.Collections instead. I will follow up as soon as I can get a response from the dev team.
Jeff
Fifth Third Bank Bank
US
Thanks for looking into this. A data structure such as this seems well suited for our current project requirements, which passes ~250 data points from an Excel sheet into web forms. So far, we have been making this work with the technique described. However, I don't know if we'll need this for future projects. I'll leave it to the Pega team to decide if they want to support this better. My thought is that -- if any Pega moderators are listening -- the ability to add parameter types (as illustrated in "DataStructure-2.jpg") should only be allowed, or given, if it is well-supported.
Pegasystems Inc.
US
I have confirmed that my response is correct. If you need this type of support and cannot live without it, I would request making a product enhancement request.