If writeSatisfiedStatus is true for an objective, in this case, which sections of tracking model are copied from local objective to shared global objective?
EDIT: Answer: satisfied status and Objective Progress Status. Satisfied Status is determined by the LMS based on the value of success status which is set by the SCO. If the success status is set to "unknown", satisfied status is set to null. If success status is set to "passed", satisfied status is set to true. If success status is set to "failed", satisfied status is set to false.
Related
Cloud you please help me with the correct JQL to build the following automation rule to work:
Whenever an issue is transitioned from status "Assigned" to status "In Progress", run a JQL or Advanced Compare or Lookup issues (or something else) in which to check:
==> IF the assigned user on the issue (current assignee), has the TOTAL number (count) of issues "In Progress" in the project greater than 0
=> THEN : do nothing (and let the user take the issue in progress )
=> ELSE : transition issue from status "In Progress" to status "Assigned"
-- How to make that JQL ?
Thank you very much in advance,
Alex
The trick is to make an automation rule, to lookup issues, and with the following code:
status = "In Progress" AND assignee = {{issue.assignee}}
WARN: The validate query wont work, but the rule as a whole works.
I am trying to return a value from a keyword to my test case, but I am getting error
Variable 'xxx' not found.
This is my code.
*** Keywords ***
Click Dispatched check box from Status
${dispatchOptionPresent}= run keyword and return status click element ${selectDispatchedCheckbox_xpath}
set global variable ${g_dispatchOptionPresent} ${dispatchOptionPresent}
run keyword if '${dispatchOptionPresent}' == 'False' NoDispatchedStatusFoundforSelection
... ELSE Set Test Message *HTML* Applied <b>'Dispatched'</b> status filter
click element xpath://body
sleep 2
NoDispatchedStatusFoundforSelection
Fail 'Dispatched' status option not found...
[Return] ${g_dispatchOptionPresent}
*** Test Cases ***
Click 'Dispatched' check box for Status
[Tags] Filter-From Date/Status for LOA
[Documentation] Test to select 'Dispatched' check box for Status
${dispatchStatusFound}= Click Dispatched check box from Status
set global variable ${g_dispatchStatusFound} ${dispatchStatusFound}
pass execution if '${g_dispatchStatusFound}' == 'False' *HTML* <b>'Dispatch'</b> status found for selection!!!
For some reason, the test case is not seeing the returned value from the keyword section.
I checked for any formatting issues also, but no luck.
A similar scenario in one of my another test case works correctly with [Return]
But this one throws me :
Variable '${g_dispatchStatusFound}' not found.
Any help is much appreciated.
Thank you.
This is what I have implemented in my CordApp:
Now while doing flow test, It's passing till Contract C. But the flow test for Contract D is failing. According to logs, it's trying to validate all states(i.e i/p and o/p) using same Command.
I found one similar question: Transaction verification failed when using different type of states as input and output
But if that was true than my Contract C Flow test cases should have also failed?
Nevertheless, as mentioned in answer, I removed validation for input states in contract D, so that one contract will validate only one state. But still same error is coming.
Any pointer on what is going wrong?
Note that:
Contracts do not verify individual states, they verify entire transactions
When verifying a transaction, the contracts of both the input and output states are run
So in your case, if I understand your diagram correctly:
The first transaction (from the left) has no inputs, output StateA, and is verified by running ContractA (associated with StateA)
The second transaction has no inputs, output StateB, and is verified by running ContractB (associated with StateB)
The third transaction has input StateB, output StateC, and is verified by running ContractB (associated with StateB) and ContractC (associated with StateC)
The fourth transaction (on the far-right) has inputs StateA and StateC, output StateD, and is verified by running ContractA (associated with StateA), ContractC (associated with StateC) and ContractD (associated with StateD)
I have asked another question with almost same scenario, A catch 22 in generating 999 file
Basically, I am inbounding HIPPA 837 files and am required to generate 999 response file.
Today I inbounded a file with ST02 element missing.
The TA1 created with Accept status, cause it only cares ISA-IEA level and that part is good.
BizTalk inbounded the file, found the issue, and actually generated a 999 message, but it failed to send out as a physical file because:
Unable to read the stream produced by the pipeline.
Details: Error: 1 (Field level error)
SegmentID: AK2
Position in TS: 3
Data Element ID: AK202
Position in Segment: 2
Data Value:
1: Mandatory data element missing
So here's the catch 22: A 999 should be created to report error for this incoming 837 file, The 999's AK202 is a required field reference to incoming file's transactionnumber defined in ST02.
And the error of the incoming file is it is missing this ST02.
Now, for this scenario, it ends up with an accept TA1 and a pending message in BizTalk messageBox.
In our trading partners view, they send a file and ONLY get a TA1 response with accept status.
My question goes here:
1. Which is the right file to report this kind of error (ST02 missing), TA1 or 999?
Is there anyway to bypass this error and have the 999 created?
There's an RFI on this at x12.org: http://rfi.x12.org/Request/Details/55?stateViewModel=WPC.RFI.Models.ViewModels.RequestViewModel
The TLDR version: you should reject the entire functional group, and use the control identifier from the functional group in AK202.
Here's the relevant text:
Description
What Segments/Data Elements should be used in the 997 when reporting an error in ST02 (Transaction Set Control Number) when the error is related to syntax or min/max? If you attempt to create a 997 back to the submitter with the inbound data from ST02 in AK202 of the 997 you would be creating an invalid 997 transaction. It appears there may be a gap in the 997 standard for reporting errors at this level. If we have misinterpreted the use of the transaction and it can be reported, please let us know how.
Response
Data elements AK102 and AK202 located within transaction set 997 and transaction set 999 are to be used to convey the values of control numbers in the functional group or transaction sets being acknowledged. If including a copy of the value of a data element in the 997 or 999 would cause a syntax violation in the 997 or 999, then if the violation is to be reported at the level at which it was found it must be reported at the next higher level.
Recommendation
The official response to a formal RFI is a letter from the current ASC X12 chair. This website often displays a summary of the RFI. Click here to view a PDF of the letter for this RFI.
When reporting errors after the syntactic analysis of the transaction set, the data analyzed must be able to be reported within the acknowledgment. While data element AK404 supports reporting the value of a data element that fails syntactic analysis without violating the syntax of the 997, the same does not apply to AK202. There are two generally accepted methods of acknowledging transaction sets: 1) acknowledge all transaction sets within the functional group or 2) acknowledge only those transaction sets containing errors. It is not recommended to accept a functional group with errors if the transaction set control number in error cannot be reported in AK202. For the example in your request, the appropriate action is to reject the entire functional group containing the ST02 value which when echoed in AK202 would create a syntactically invalid 997. In addition, the same logic applies to the functional group control number;, the appropriate action is to reject the entire interchange containing the syntactically invalid data.
How do I specify a multiple roll up action for example. Based on success status of any one SCO I want the overall status of the course to be satisfied and similarly based on the completion status of any of the SCO, I want the completion status of the overall course to be completed. I tried doing it by specifying 2 rollup rules but testing on scorm.com is not giving the expected result. Any clues?
<imsss:rollupRules objectiveMeasureWeight="1">
<imsss:rollupRule childActivitySet="any">
<imsss:rollupConditions conditionCombination="any">
<imsss:rollupCondition operator="noOp" condition="completed" />
</imsss:rollupConditions>
<imsss:rollupAction action="completed" />
</imsss:rollupRule>
<imsss:rollupRule childActivitySet="any">
<imsss:rollupConditions conditionCombination="any">
<imsss:rollupCondition operator="noOp" condition="satisfied" />
</imsss:rollupConditions>
<imsss:rollupAction action="satisfied" />
</imsss:rollupRule>
</imsss:rollupRules>
This is what I have set but this doesnot seem to work. Can somebody point out whats wrong?
To clarify, do you mean that the status of one particular SCO controls the rolled up status? Or, do you mean that if any SCO achieves a status then the parent should also attain that status?
If it is the former, you want to just mark all of the other SCOs as not contributing to rollup. See the Post Test Rollup golf example.
If it is the later, then you will want a rollup rule on the parent that says "if any completed/satisfied then completed/satisfied".
You are on the right track by having two separate rollup rules for the separate status rollups. In fact, you need a separate rollup rule for each individual status...i.e. a rule for incomplete, a rule for completed, a rule for satisfied and a rule for not satisfied.