TM1 Forum

Hello all,

I'd like to be able to limit a source dimension in a feeder based on an attribute, something like:

FEEDERS;

['FY10', 'Pass1', 'Account' with Attribute 'Type' = 'Mapped' ] => ['FY10', 'Pass1', ... etc];

Is this possible?

TIA. - John

image2x wrote: ['FY10', 'Pass1', 'Account' with Attribute 'Type' = 'Mapped' ] => ['FY10', 'Pass1', ... etc];

Not like that, but something like

['FY10', 'Pass 1'] =>
DB(if(attrs('Dim', !Dim, 'Attr')@='Mapped', 'CubeName', ''), !Dim1, !Dim2, !Dim3);

I.e. in the right side of the feeder, do the test, and then if true insert the cube name, if false, then '', which means the feeder won't go anywhere. You have to use the fully quantified DB('...'); ref because the if statement makes it too complex to do the simple [''] ref.

Note, with conditional feeders, if the condition is met (or not met) at load time, then subsequently changes to not met (or met), then the feeder won't update until next time the server is bounced or the rule is saved.

Martin

Thanks Martin.

So with conditional feeders, if the cube I'm feeding is itself, I still would need to use the DB('Cube') function?

That's right image2x as soon as you move away from a simple square bracket reference you need to use a DB () reference even if you are feeding internally. Cheers

There is one small thing you can do on the "left side".

Common - Write 3 Line
[…, ‘elem1’, …] => …;
[…, ‘elem2’, …] => …;
[…, ‘elem3’, …] => …;


Possible - Write 1 line
[…, {‘elem1’, ’elem2’, ’elem3’}, …] => …;

I am not sure I would recommend it, but it is something to be aware of.

Couple of things:
a On 9.0 (at least) you can't use the {} notation on the LHS of a feeder;
b For refiring conditional feeders, you can use the TI command CubeProcessFeeders.

Thanks guys. I appreciate the help.

TM1 is incredible... the power of real time data is amazing.

Yes, it's a shame their "improvements" are forcing us to move further away from a real time appraoch... I guess it depends if you are new to TM1 or have had a longer experience.

Steve Rowe wrote:Yes, it's a shame their "improvements" are forcing us to move further away from a real time appraoch... I guess it depends if you are new to TM1 or have had a longer experience.

Steve, can you elaborate? Is this in reference to what's being planned for the merging of Cognos Planning and TM1? Thx.

Hi image2x

See this thread.

If you are new to Tm1 and have gone straight in at 9.4, you probably won't notice the distinction. The object-locking model between version 9.0 and 9.1/9.4 dropped from the server level to the cube level, this happened before Cognos (AFAICR). Anyway I won't sidetrack this thread further here, as I've set up a poll to see what other peoples view is.