Question
Compare 2 Page List With Data Transform
hi,
i have problem for check property in 2 page list using data transform,
for example, i'm using for each page in for Page List A and then i'm using the second for each page in Page List B inside for each page in for Page List A.
but when i'm compare 3 list property PL A & 1 list Propery PL B which using <CURRENT> in PL B (example : .IDCode !=Primary.ABCList(<CURRENT>).sm_BarCode ), its some gets error ( problem with indexin).
there is anyone can help me :)
I'veattach the screen shot.
is it should be the same amount in PL A and PL B ?
Hello,
Can you please let us know the PRPC version you are using ? Also, kindly let us know what is the error you are facing if possible with screenshots.
Best Regards,
Mounika
i'm using 7.2.1 ,
I attach, how it's usedand the error..becausethere is a setof propertyin the Page List.
thanks
CURRENT always refers to the current loop. You are trying to access the outer loop's current which is the root cause and will cause index related issues.
One way of maintaining the index in case of multiple nested loops is to keep a parameter to track index for different loops. This is stored in pyForEachCount parameter. Before entering the LoopB you can do a property set (param.LoopBIndex == param.pyForEachCount) and then use this index instead of Current.
Let me know if this helps :)
hi rawap,
thanks for your explanation, but i wanna ask some question :)
are the param.Index1 & param.pyForEachCount a parameter variable ? can i change use property for param.Index1 ?
is the TempPage1.pxResult a Pagelist ?
thanks
Adding screenshot for more clarity
This is something I have struggled with to accomplish as well - nice answer - 'stashing' the top-level COUNT value.
(This is actually a similar issue [and solution] to writing XSLT files; where you can have to 'stash' the outer-loop using variables).
Thanks !
Just out of interest : do we have to switch to using the 'internal' value 'pyForEachCount' - or couldn't we just stash the '<COUNT>' value at this level also ? (just a bit more consistent ?)
(of course I could just try it - but I'm being lazy and asking you !! :-) )
hi, thanks rawap. I can use it :D
If Possible,Can you provide a screenshot.