TM1 Forum

Hey together,

actual having an issue with my rule / porportional data spread.

My example cube is simple, just 2D with 3 measures and a time-dimension with 12 month and a year element.
My rule:
Doing a prop. spread on tm1 "REQ" / "ZE-9999" will cause the following Error:
Spreading failed due to conflicts with rules.

I already tried to write the rule in different ways, but I couldn't solve it...

Do you guys have an idea how I have to change my rule to fix this and get the correct output?

Thanks!
Best regard

tm1nb

Did you find a solution as I'm facing the same problem?

I assume, that this "inverse spreading" is only possible for simple functions, such as:
Sales = Units * Price,
( A = B * C)
you can insert sales, price is kept stable an the system does the spread to units.

In your case, as
A = (B - C ) / B
TM1 is not able to do the spreading to B and keep C stable

Am I wrong?

Regards
Mark

Mark2007 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 5:34 pm Did you find a solution as I'm facing the same problem?

I assume, that this "inverse spreading" is only possible for simple functions, such as:
Sales = Units * Price,
( A = B * C)
you can insert sales, price is kept stable an the system does the spread to units.

In your case, as
A = (B - C ) / B
TM1 is not able to do the spreading to B and keep C stable

Am I wrong?

Regards
Mark

Hi, I haven't done a lot of such rules calculations.

But if you say that A = (B - C ) / B is too difficult, would it help if you write:
A = 1 - C / B
or even
A = 1 - C \ B

The outcome is different though. In your case, if B = 0 then A = 0 (if you use a backslash instead of forward slash for divisions.
In my case if B = 0 then A = 1.
So next to being possible or not, one should be careful too.

Hi Wim, thanks for your idea, but it does not work either

I don't think proportional spread against a calculated C level element will work, even when the Ns below it are open.

In theory there is nothing to stop the engine doing the work, perhaps worth raising with IBM to see if they thinks its a bug but this I would expect to raise an enhancement request for this. This will take time and probably won't go anywhere...

It's kind of ugly but I think you'll need another measure to calculate the average price for reporting and leave the input open versus the input price.

Hi,

I obviously don't understand the real nature of this problem, but going back to the original query, if I proportionally spread to the right on REQ, ZE-9999 then it works ok.

If I leave the spread to the right box unchecked then it shows the conflict rules error.

Maren

Spreading over a rule does work as long as at the leaf level there is only 1 independent variable. As you have more than one potential input to flex spreading can't be done.