Page 1 of 1

Interesting findings in rules

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:52 am
by macsir
Although the official document is saying,
When consolidating data in cubes that have rules defined, TM1 turns off this sparse consolidation algorithm because one or more empty cells may in fact be calculated by a rule. (Skipping rules-calculated cells will cause consolidated totals to be incorrect). When the sparse consolidation algorithm is turned off, every cell is checked for a value during consolidation. This can slow down calculations in cubes that are very large and sparse.

SKIPCHECK;copy to clipboard
If your rule uses a FEEDSTRINGS statement, the SKIPCHECK statement should be the second statement in your rule. If your rule does not use a FEEDSTRINGS statement, the SKIPCHECK statement should be the first statement in your rule.

When you use SKIPCHECK to restore sparse consolidation, you must also ensure that your rule includes a FEEDERS declaration and that all rules-derived cells are identified by feeder statements.
But if you put any text without hash in the front before SKIPCHECK statment, TM1 won't give you any error and rule is still valid if you save it. I don't know if it is bug or not. This has been verified in 10.2.2 FP4 and PA2 environments. I assume the rule just begin to be evaluated from SKIPCHECK statement anyway. Anything before that will be ignored.

Re: Interesting findings in rules

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:53 am
by Elessar
(Was long ago in 9.5.2)
This broke my brain, when I tried to analyze a rule with 3 (!) SKIPCHECKS

The rule begins to be evaluated from the last SKIPCHECK statement

Re: Interesting findings in rules

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 9:08 pm
by macsir
Elessar wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:53 am (Was long ago in 9.5.2)
This broke my brain, when I tried to analyze a rule with 3 (!) SKIPCHECKS

The rule begins to be evaluated from the last SKIPCHECK statement
haha, good one. :lol:

Re: Interesting findings in rules

Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:56 pm
by Duncan P
I went to a customer in the south of England who were using this feature of the rule parser to write extensive well formatted documentation of their rules. Couldn't believe it then went back to read the parser code and, lo and behold, it was confirmed. However it looked as if it was completely accidental. I suppose only Manny could tell for sure.

Re: Interesting findings in rules

Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:26 pm
by PavoGa
Duncan P wrote: Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:56 pm customer in the south of England who were using this feature of the rule parser to write extensive well formatted documentation of their rules.
This race of beings of which you speak, of what heretofore unknown lands in the south of England whence they came? :lol: