- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic to the Top
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
Help with response map
[ Edited ]- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
06-15-2010 11:53 AM - last edited on 06-15-2010 11:56 AM
I have the attached response map that I am trying to update. samples - 2 and 3 are the ones I have added. I don't understand why the following errors are reported.
1. on sample 3 - one and only one error- I wish i could embed a regexp inside
2. on any other sample - the error is reported against an optional token (Vi6)
Would be great if anyone can comment on what I am missing.
Thanks
Solved! Go to Solution.
Re: Help with response map
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
06-15-2010 01:27 PM
I'm sure we could fix up this block map to deal with these errors. But in looking through the samples, I don't see why you would want to use block mapping. It is far easier to use pattern mapping for this case. Then you can pull out sections of the response that may or may not appear in any given example.
I didn't fully complete this change over to patterns, but did most of it. In the attachment you'll see your response map -- now modified to mostly use patterns, except for the tables at the bottom, which are handled using table maps.
I removed sample3 -- because it looks quite different than the other samples. It could be handled as well, but I just didn't want to add in all those other variants.
Take a look and let me know if you have questions.
Re: Help with response map
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
06-15-2010 02:25 PM
Thanks - I could not open the .ffrm - error message about deserialization"..
Anyways, are you suggesting pattern matching is better here ? this is a bit complex o/p with some nested info with diff. keys that are dynamic. I have not used pattern matching enough to comment on its capabilities but block mapping had pretty much everything I wanted to do and easy to comprehend. unless there is a major advantage I would stick to block map.
Re: Help with response map
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
06-15-2010 02:54 PM
Are you running iTest 4.0? (I created it with 4.0 and if you're using 3.4, you might get a warning accordingly, but this doesn't depend on any new features in 4.0.)
I didn't see any repeating nested structures in your samples.
The problem with block mapping for something as complex as this with so many variants is that the block map gets more and more complex to manage as you keep adding in new variants of the response. It is, of course, possible -- and you're almost there. But you'll notice that I built the entire pattern-based response map in only 15 minutes or so, and that's its big advantage.
And one of the best things about pattern maps is that you can use regex's where you need them to do just about anything you need to do. In block mapping, by its nature, we have to be more restrictive, and that leads to the kind of challenges you are seeing.
The thing that many people don't realize about pattern mapping is that a single pattern can span many lines. So you don't have to handle each line separately. And that usually makes it very easy and quick to create.
Re: Help with response map
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
06-15-2010 03:03 PM
Here's the same response map that you should be able to use with iTest 3.4.
Re: Help with response map
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
06-15-2010 03:05 PM
I am using 3.4.0 and cannot see the updated .ffrm completely -
On the nested o/p - the filters you see are nested - I have containers and queries accordingly.
I would switch to pattern if it can be that quick without loosing the other functionality I currently built into the RM. - wish I could open your .ffrm.
Re: Help with response map
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
06-16-2010 07:52 AM
When you say that you "cannot see the updated .ffrm completely", what do you mean by "completely"? It will open, but something is missing? Or what?
I had that response map open in iTest 3.4, so I'm surprised that you wouldn't be able to see it. Note, however, that I mainly just kept the samples (except sample3) and recreated the map for those samples.
Re: Help with response map
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
06-16-2010 08:23 AM
My earlier response was prior to seeing your latest .ffrm - so please ignore. I am trying to see if I can get all samples into one with your combo-maps without lossing the queries I had on block maps.
Re: Help with response map
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
06-16-2010 12:52 PM
migrating the queries from block to combo-maps is taking more time than I thought.. I tried the workaround of putting the new samples in new .ffrm (retaining the structure and queries) but in a different directory and let the auto mapping logic automatically pick the correct .ffrm but iTest always picks the old. Kinda stuck now.
Re: Help with response map
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
06-16-2010 02:25 PM
You can set the applicability data on the response maps so that one has a higher priority than the other.
