Put the copy immediately after the connector from the lookup ... \l: | copy | ...
Regards, Richard Schuh > -----Original Message----- > From: CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob Cronin > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 11:37 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Re-lookup? > > Ok, but not all the unmatched records are going to have > "/contr" in them. So on that secondary output I need a locate > to select the ones that do have it, then a change to delete > the "/contr" and then finally send them to the faninany > preceding the lookup. When I do that with copy or elastic, > the pipe stalls. Ideas? > -- > bc > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Schuh, Richard<[email protected]> wrote: > > Your secondary output of lookup would go through the stream > where "Modify the record" is. Only unmatched details pass through it. > > > > Regards, > > Richard Schuh > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List > >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob Cronin > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 11:07 AM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: Re-lookup? > >> > >> I only want to lookup the modified version if the > un-modified version > >> is not found (but thanks for that idea Rob). > >> > >> The faninany/copy was what I was looking for, thanks to > both of you. > >> -- > >> bc > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Schuh, > Richard<[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Faninany in the primary input - you will need a stage to > >> consume the record prior to sending it to the faninany. Copy or > >> elastic should do the job. > >> > > >> > ... | f: faninany |l: lookup ... \ l: | ... Modify the > >> record | copy | f: > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > Richard Schuh > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List > >> >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob Cronin > >> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 10:27 AM > >> >> To: [email protected] > >> >> Subject: Re: Re-lookup? > >> >> > >> >> But I don't want it in the reference, I want it in the > >> details. The > >> >> reference contains a table of known-valid Notes email > >> addresses and > >> >> their rfc822 equivalent and the details contains a > table of Notes > >> >> addresses I am trying to determine the rfc822 > equivalent for. If I > >> >> don't find a candidate address in the reference, I want to > >> see if it > >> >> has a "/Contr/" > >> >> in it, remove it if so and re-look-it-up in the > known-valid table. > >> >> > >> >> What am I missing here? > >> >> -- > >> >> bc > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Schuh, > >> Richard<[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > Feed them in to the tertiary input stream. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Tertiary Input Stream: When a record is read on the > >> >> tertiary input > >> >> > stream, > >> >> > the contents of the second input range are used as the > >> >> key. The > >> >> > record is > >> >> > added to the reference if there is not already a > record in the > >> >> > reference for > >> >> > the key. The record is also added if ALLMASTERS is > specified. > >> >> > Otherwise the > >> >> > record is a duplicate and it is passed to the quinary > >> >> output stream > >> >> > (if it is > >> >> > defined and connected). > >> >> > > >> >> > Regards, > >> >> > Richard Schuh > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> >> From: CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List > >> >> >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob Cronin > >> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 10:19 AM > >> >> >> To: [email protected] > >> >> >> Subject: Re-lookup? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Is there a way to take detail records that were not > >> found in the > >> >> >> reference, modify them and then feed them back into the > >> >> same lookup? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> For example let's say I am looking up an email address > >> >> >> "Bob_Cronin/Contr/Poughkeepsie/IBM" and don't find it in the > >> >> >> reference, can I > >> on-the-fly-without-having-to-code-another-lookup > >> >> >> take that non-matching record, modify it to > >> >> >> "Bob_Cronin/Poughkeepsie/IBM" > >> >> >> and look it up again? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> There seem to be lots of documented options for adding > >> >> records to the > >> >> >> reference on the fly, but not to the details. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Am I just being silly here? > >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> bc > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >
