Value is not computing after adding existing element to a dimension?

[habibullah.sayyed]

Hello everyone,

My hiererchy is:-
.Level 4
. Level 3
. Level 2
. Level 1
. Level 0

Edited hierarchy on user demand:-
.Level 4
. Level 3
. Level 2
. Level 1
. Level 0
. Level 2 (edited)
Note:- Level 2(edited) element is same as Level 2, this two are same element

So now the issue is, value for Level 2 is computing, but value for level 2(edited one) is not computing. So what is the reason for this?

Note:- No feeders issue at all

[Wim Gielis]

What is the exact structure of the dimension ?
Does level 2 edited have children ?
Does it have a rule ?
What about dimension weights : all 1 ?
Please spend time to lay out the question in a proper way. If not you are losing your and our time.

[habibullah.sayyed]

What is the exact structure of the dimension ?

Its a hierarchical dimension with alternate hierarchy, its just made for ease of user.

Does level 2 edited have children ?

Yes, the childrens are also same as of 'level 2'. Also the value for leaf level of 'level 2 edited' is computing properly but at 'level 2 edited' it is not computing.

Does it have a rule ?

Yes, its rule is same.

What about dimension weights : all 1 ?

Yes weight is 1.

And also want to share the rule for that cell is "a=b/c"
where as,
a = that level 2
b = this value is within cube
c = this value called by DB function in a rule from other cube
Also want to share that for 'level 2' value of c is showing when I trace that cell, but for 'level 2 edited' value of c is not showing.

Thank you for your time. Sorry for insufficient inputs...
Please tell if you need any more info...

[Alan Kirk]

What is the exact structure of the dimension ?

Its a hierarchical dimension with alternate hierarchy, its just made for ease of user.

I think what Wim meant was this:

5) For Rules and TurboIntegrator processes, posting the actual code and the real names of and structures of your cubes, dimensions and elements will be a thousand times more useful than an attempted description of them. You don't need to post real data, but the real code is needed. Pseudo code is obviously not "the real code". When you post something like "Suppose I have cube A and Cube B, and my rule is ['value'] = N:DB('CubeA', 'dim1, dim2'" etc, then three things happen. One, you reduce the chance that a syntax or typing error will be spotted, which means wasting time bouncing posts back and forth to try to get to the root of the problem. Two, you are usually describing what you think is happening, which may not be what is happening. Three, some more experienced members won't even look at the question because they've had too much time wasted by the first two issues in the past....

[Steve Rowe]

Though you state no feeder issue what is your evidence for this?
A common problem with feeders is if you feed a consolidation, then when the feeder first saves the children of that consolidation will be fed as you would expect.

If you then add a child to that consolidation then in most circumstances that child would not be fed as nothing has changed to trigger the feeder execution.

Other than that use the rule tracer to figure out what is happening as Alan as said, we have virtually no information.