Connected Pawns

October 8, 2011

BizTalk 2010 mapper–mapping to a schema that has an attribute with an identical name to an element

Filed under: BizTalk — Tags: , , — mbrimble @ 8:33 am

One of my colleagues struck a problem trying to map to a rather nasty schema shown on the right below;

Attribute problem

The user element has an attribute of business-partner-no and there is a child element of the same name. No matter what you do if you try to drag a link to the child element called business-partner-no the link always gets connected to the attribute of the same name.

I am writing about this because I have just spent the morning changing the map to custom XSLT to get around the problem.

Is this by design or is this a bug with the BizTalk 2010 mapper? Does this occur with the mappers in previous versions of BizTalk?

Advertisement

3 Comments »

  1. I ran into the same issue. I never had this problem with previous versions.

    I tried to connect an source element to a target element and it wouldn’t let me.

    Comment by Howard Edidin — October 8, 2011 @ 12:40 pm

    • Thanks I am pleased know I am not the only one in the world who has this problem.

      Comment by mbrimble — October 8, 2011 @ 2:59 pm

  2. From: oztalk@yahoogroups.com.au [mailto:oztalk@yahoogroups.com.au]
    Sent: Saturday, 8 October 2011 6:40 p.m.
    To: oztalk@yahoogroups.com.au
    Subject: [oztalk] Re: BizTalk 2010 mapper mapping to a schema that has an attribute with an identical
    Very interesting.
    Okay, the problem occurs if the attribute’s Element FormDefault property is “Unqualified” while the element’s is “Qualified”.
    To be able to map the node, both nodes have to be explicitly qualified, or both explicitly unqualified, or both default. Any other combination where the settings don’t match causes the behaviour you’ve indicated.
    I would guess it has something to do with ambiguity, but then why would it work if both had the same setting? I’d be curious to know if anyone discovers a reason for this.
    Anyway, you probably don’t have the freedom to change the target schema definition, so I doubt any of this was helpful to you…?
    Cheers,
    Dan

    Comment by Mark Brimble — October 9, 2011 @ 5:21 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Theme: Silver is the New Black. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.