One extra thing to validate in that load rule, even if all looks well

This isn’t one you will run into too often, if ever, but seems to be a small issue. I was working on a load rule the other day (yay load rules!) and everything validated just fine. There’s nothing better than the smell of an “everything validated correctly!” dialog in the morning. I am on a project refactoring a cube and one of the small changes made was that the dimension name has changed for one of the dimensions from Accounts to Account. One of the core load rules for this cube uses the “sign flip on UDA” feature. Of course, for this feature to work (which I have used many times before and love [but not as much as I love EIS…]) it needs to specify the dimension and the UDA of the members in that dimension to flip the sign for. Well, sign flipping wasn’t working and even though the load rule validates just fine, the problem was that non-existant dimension in the sign flip configuration. So, although there could be a reason to not want to validate this, it seems somewhat reasonable (if nothing else, for the sake of completeness) that the load rule verification should include verifying that if the dimension name for sign flipping does exist. It would have saved me a little bit of time.

2 thoughts on “One extra thing to validate in that load rule, even if all looks well

  1. Yet another example of why Load Rules are evil.



    Cameron Lackpour

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.