Hello, again.
This is a strange one.... and I'm on version 24.1.281.0
I have two expression rules... one generates some error messages (or none) and the other deals with the errors. However, in the scenario where the first expression rule generates no errors, the second one still thinks there are errors.
Expression 1: (called SH_ErrorGenerator)
a!localVariables( local!stringArray: {"a", "b"}, local!error1: "", /* value from another expression rule normally */ local!error2: "", /* value from another expression rule normally */ local!error3: {""}, /* value from another expression rule normally */ local!errors: { local!error1, local!error2, local!error3 }, local!allErrors: cast( /* make sure this is list of string not list of variant */ typeof(local!stringArray), reject(a!isNullOrEmpty, a!flatten(local!errors)) ), local!anyErrors: and(not(isnull(local!allErrors)), length(local!allErrors) > 0), { errors: local!allErrors, anyErrors: local!anyErrors } )
Expression 2:
a!localVariables( local!result: rule!SH_ErrorGenerator(), local!errors: local!result.errors, local!anyErrors: and(not(isnull(local!errors)), length(local!errors) > 0), local!anyErrors )
Here is the result I see.
result.anyErrors (calculated by SH_ErrorGenerator) is false (as it should be), but local!anyErrors (calculated by second rule) says true. And even the local variables screen says there are 0 items in the array.
Any idea what's going on here?
Thank you.
Discussion posts and replies are publicly visible
A small tweak shows the second expression sees the array as having 1 element.
a!localVariables( local!result: rule!SH_ErrorGenerator(), local!errors: local!result.errors, local!anyErrors: and(not(isnull(local!errors)), length(local!errors) > 0), { a: local!anyErrors, b: length(local!errors) } )
But, of course, you cannot actually index that item.
a!localVariables( local!result: rule!SH_ErrorGenerator(), local!errors: local!result.errors, local!anyErrors: and(not(isnull(local!errors)), length(local!errors) > 0), { a: local!anyErrors, b: length(local!errors), c: local!errors[1] } )
So, overall, the answer is to use isNullOrEmpty to test a list for no items. I had never considered this thinking it was more a string function than an array functions.
Still, there is a technical nuance here I would like to understand if I can (and if I even have time to). It may have something to do with what osanchea is saying about using Map vs Dictionary. I might try to play with that and see if it helps.
Thank you, all for your responses!!