29 Replies Latest reply: May 15, 2014 10:04 AM by brent quick RSS

    Help

    brent quick

      I have been given Monarch and a problem and do not know if it is the right solution but I figured to give it a chance.  After a couple of hours I determined that I need some sage advice.

       

      I need to get the detail lines of the vendor and the voucher and as a footer the address block.  I had no problems until I hit a payment that had more then one voucher and after I figured out that I found that not all "voucher" lines have the pound sign that was the point I gave up and decided to look for help.

       

      Any and all appreciated.

       

       

      Sample Data

      "Vendor ID","Name","Account Number","Check Date","Document Number"

      "VENDOR 1","VENDOR 1 NAME","","6/10/2009","005545"

      "Our Voucher Number","Date","Amount","Amount Paid","Discount","Net Amount Paid"

      "# 14972","6/10/20","$5,440.00","$5,440.00","$0.00","$5,440.00"

      "$5,440.00","$5,440.00","$0.00","$5,440.00"

      ""

      ""

      "6/10/2009","$5,440.00"

      "Five Thousand Four Hundred Forty Dollars and 00 Cents"

      ""

      ""

      "VENDOR 1 NAME"

      "3310 OLD ROAD"

      "City NC    27000"

      ""

      "Vendor ID","Name","Account Number","Check Date","Document Number"

      "VENDOR 1","VENDOR 1 NAME","","6/10/2009","005545"

      "Our Voucher Number","Date","Amount","Amount Paid","Discount","Net Amount Paid"

      "# 14972","6/10/20","$5,440.00","$5,440.00","$0.00","$5,440.00"

      "$5,440.00","$5,440.00","$0.00","$5,440.00"

      ""

      ""

      "Vendor ID","Name","Account Number","Check Date","Document Number"

      "VENDOR 2","VENDOR 2 NAME","","6/10/2009","005546"

      "Our Voucher Number","Date","Amount","Amount Paid","Discount","Net Amount Paid"

      "#0003315","6/10/20","$52.00","$52.00","$0.00","$52.00"

      "$52.00","$52.00","$0.00","$52.00"

      ""

      ""

      "6/10/2009","$52.00"

      "Fifty Two Dollars and 00 Cents"

      ""

      ""

      "VENDOR 2 NAME"

      "3302 OLD RD"

      "City NC    27000"

      ""

      "Vendor ID","Name","Account Number","Check Date","Document Number"

      "VENDOR 2","VENDOR 2 NAME","","6/10/2009","005546"

      "Our Voucher Number","Date","Amount","Amount Paid","Discount","Net Amount Paid"

      "#0003315","6/10/20","$52.00","$52.00","$0.00","$52.00"

      "$52.00","$52.00","$0.00","$52.00"

      ""

      ""

      "Vendor ID","Name","Account Number","Check Date","Document Number"

      "VENDOR 3","VENDOR 3 NAME","","6/10/2009","005547"

      "Our Voucher Number","Date","Amount","Amount Paid","Discount","Net Amount Paid"

      "# 0151533","6/10/20","$757.05","$757.05","$0.00","$757.05"

      "# 0151706","6/10/20","$427.75","$427.75","$0.00","$427.75"

      "$1,184.80","$1,184.80","$0.00","$1,184.80"

      ""

      ""

      "6/10/2009","$1,184.80"

      "One Thousand One Hundred Eighty Four Dollars and 80 Cents"

      ""

      ""

      "VENDOR 3 NAME"

      "3302 OLD ST"

      "CITY NC    27000"

      ""

      "Vendor ID","Name","Account Number","Check Date","Document Number"

      "VENDOR 3","VENDOR 3 NAME","","6/10/2009","005547"

      "Our Voucher Number","Date","Amount","Amount Paid","Discount","Net Amount Paid"

      "# 0151533","6/10/20","$757.05","$757.05","$0.00","$757.05"

      "# 0151706","6/10/20","$427.75","$427.75","$0.00","$427.75"

      "$1,184.80","$1,184.80","$0.00","$1,184.80"

      "Vendor ID","Name","Account Number","Check Date","Document Number"

      "VENDOR 4","VENDOR 4 NAME","","6/10/2009","005542"

      "Our Voucher Number","Date","Amount","Amount Paid","Discount","Net Amount Paid"

      "6/09-AGT 218","6/10/20","$774.44","$774.44","$0.00","$774.44"

      "$774.44","$774.44","$0.00","$774.44"

      ""

      ""

      "6/10/2009","$774.44"

      "Seven Hundred Seventy Four Dollars and 44 Cents"

      ""

      ""

      "VENDOR 4 NAME"

      "PO BOX 1"

      "CITY NC    27000"

      ""

      "Vendor ID","Name","Account Number","Check Date","Document Number"

      "VENDOR 4","VENDOR 4 NAME","","6/10/2009","005542"

      "Our Voucher Number","Date","Amount","Amount Paid","Discount","Net Amount Paid"

      "6/09-AGT 218","6/10/20","$774.44","$774.44","$0.00","$774.44"

      "$774.44","$774.44","$0.00","$774.44"

      /CODE

        • Help
          Grant Perkins

          Hi Brent and welcome to the forum.

           

          A couple of questions to start with.

           

          Is the information presented to you just as you have posted it here - as a quoted CSV file output? And do you use it in that format or convert it back to a formatted and structured report?

           

          Does your end result need to be voucher centric (where necessary repeating vendor and address information for each voucher record) or Vendor centric (listing all vouchers for a vendor and adding one instance of the address at the end)?

           

          Grant

            • Help
              brent quick

              Hi Brent and welcome to the forum.

               

              A couple of questions to start with.

               

              Is the information presented to you just as you have posted it here - as a quoted CSV file output? And do you use it in that format or convert it back to a formatted and structured report?

               

              Does your end result need to be voucher centric (where necessary repeating vendor and address information for each voucher record) or Vendor centric (listing all vouchers for a vendor and adding one instance of the address at the end)?

               

              Grant[/QUOTE]

               

              The source data is just as presented here, I only changed the vendor ID, vedor names, and mailing addresses data, but left the structure exactly as the source file.  I am not sure what you are asking, I get the file in this format and run Monarch against it.

               

              My end result needs to be voucher centric (I guess), meaning I do not know how may vouchers I might need to process, but there will always be only one payee and address.

               

              Thanks

                • Help
                  Grant Perkins

                  The source data is just as presented here, I only changed the vendor ID, vedor names, and mailing addresses data, but left the structure exactly as the source file. I am not sure what you are asking, I get the file in this format and run Monarch against it.

                   

                  My end result needs to be voucher centric (I guess), meaning I do not know how may vouchers I might need to process, but there will always be only one payee and address.

                   

                  Thanks[/quote]

                   

                  Hi Brent,

                   

                  We don't often see reports in this format here on the forum, unless they are possible 'database' analysis subjects for Pro Monarch users.

                   

                  I looked at that option here but the subtotals lines mess up an anyway a DB read would not give you what you want. However I did wonder about creating a more normal looking report from the input file before applying Monarch.

                   

                  In the event this looks lke a bit of an advanced subject dog's dinner I'm afraid. Partly because the voucher information seems to be repeated after the address lines, unless we have lost something in the depersonalisation.

                   

                  I can sort of get it to work except for the duplication but to usefully describe it will take a while so the duplication question answer becomes a key part of how to approach this and might suggest a completely different strategy to the one I have applied so far. So rather than write it up as it is I figured I would check with you first. I could be wasting a lot of time otherwise and still leave you treading water in the deep end of the pool!

                   

                   

                  Grant

                    • Help
                      brent quick

                      Hi Brent,

                       

                      We don't often see reports in this format here on the forum, unless they are possible 'database' analysis subjects for Pro Monarch users.

                       

                      I looked at that option here but the subtotals lines mess up an anyway a DB read would not give you what you want. However I did wonder about creating a more normal looking report from the input file before applying Monarch.

                       

                      In the event this looks lke a bit of an advanced subject dog's dinner I'm afraid. Partly because the voucher information seems to be repeated after the address lines, unless we have lost something in the depersonalisation.

                       

                      I can sort of get it to work except for the duplication but to usefully describe it will take a while so the duplication question answer becomes a key part of how to approach this and might suggest a completely different strategy to the one I have applied so far. So rather than write it up as it is I figured I would check with you first. I could be wasting a lot of time otherwise and still leave you treading water in the deep end of the pool!

                       

                       

                      Grant[/QUOTE]

                       

                      Grant,

                       

                      Thanks for looking, maybe some more information would be helpful.

                       

                      What you are looking at is the "check" output from a business system.  Our project is to take the output, parse it and then import it into SQL, so that the check can be reproduced at a later time.  The output could be modified if there is no way that Monarch can deal with it as is, but I am no where near qualified to make that determination.

                       

                      As to the data, you are correct this is a three part form with the first and third sections being a mirror, so that the bottom third is kept with the vouchers being paid, and the first and second being mailed to the payee.

                       

                       

                      Thanks again for your help.

                        • Help
                          Grant Perkins

                          Brent,

                           

                          OK, it begins to make sense. Obviously as a print document the duplication has a reason but as a database entry it doesn't as far as I can tell.

                           

                          The problem is that there is no easy way to prevent the extraction of the duplicate section. It does not seem to have a unique identifier that could be used to identify it and de-select.

                           

                          That means that odd things happen with appends (the Vendor ID information seems to be an append candidate) and footers (the address information and the check values) and they will need special handling.

                           

                          What do you want to do with the Summary value analysis totals?  They don't seem to fit anywhere in an extraction model and they could be derived from the values of the detail lines (vouchers)  if the re-print program is allowed some intelligence rather than being a simple print routine.

                           

                          On that point, is the database to be normalised or simply a store of the print lines?

                           

                          If it is just a store of print lines then the record should be Vendor centric with a number of voucher lines available in the record. (I assume there would, realistically, be a sensible limit to the number of lines likely? If not scrib this idea.)

                           

                          If the rcords are voucher number centric then each database entry will have all the vendor and address (and check value) data attached to it, which may not be the right way to go here.

                           

                          It rather depends on whether this is a single purpose exercise (re-prints) or if other activities (analysis) might be required from it.

                           

                          I'm beginning to think we are really looking at something that is check centric here and therefore the voucher lines are just parts of the detail record that help to advise how the amount is made up and have no other primary purpose. That may make things a little easier in some ways.

                           

                          How do you see it?

                           

                           

                          Grant

                            • Help
                              brent quick

                              Brent,

                               

                              OK, it begins to make sense. Obviously as a print document the duplication has a reason but as a database entry it doesn't as far as I can tell.

                               

                              The problem is that there is no easy way to prevent the extraction of the duplicate section. It does not seem to have a unique identifier that could be used to identify it and de-select.

                               

                              That means that odd things happen with appends (the Vendor ID information seems to be an append candidate) and footers (the address information and the check values) and they will need special handling.

                               

                              What do you want to do with the Summary value analysis totals?  They don't seem to fit anywhere in an extraction model and they could be derived from the values of the detail lines (vouchers)  if the re-print program is allowed some intelligence rather than being a simple print routine.

                               

                              On that point, is the database to be normalised or simply a store of the print lines?

                               

                              If it is just a store of print lines then the record should be Vendor centric with a number of voucher lines available in the record. (I assume there would, realistically, be a sensible limit to the number of lines likely? If not scrib this idea.)

                               

                              If the rcords are voucher number centric then each database entry will have all the vendor and address (and check value) data attached to it, which may not be the right way to go here.

                               

                              It rather depends on whether this is a single purpose exercise (re-prints) or if other activities (analysis) might be required from it.

                               

                              I'm beginning to think we are really looking at something that is check centric here and therefore the voucher lines are just parts of the detail record that help to advise how the amount is made up and have no other primary purpose. That may make things a little easier in some ways.

                               

                              How do you see it?

                               

                               

                              Grant[/QUOTE]

                               

                              Grant,

                               

                              I believe that the correct "focus" would be check specific, in that the database uses the check number as the unique ID for a transaction.  We have two tables setup, one for the header information and one for the details.  Check number, vendor information, amount, etc go to the header table while details about the specific vouchers go to the detail table.  We expect to have the header information repeated and our SSIS package deals with this fact by looping and comparing cuurent check number with prior check number and if same skips the write to the header table but writes to the detail table.

                               

                              As to being normalized, we grab the line, parse it, and then store the individual values in separate fields.

                               

                              Hope this makes the issue clearer and again thanks for the help.

                                • Help
                                  Olly Bond

                                  Hello Grant,

                                   

                                  It sounds to me that we might need multiple passes at this - and perhaps there's a way of tying the data back together by trapping a page header template in there and using Page() as a key?

                                   

                                  HTH

                                   

                                  Olly

                                    • Help
                                      Data Kruncher

                                      using Page() as a key[/QUOTE]

                                       

                                      I'd been thinking along the same lines here.

                                       

                                      If the Monarch Utility was first used to convert instances of:

                                      ""

                                      ""[/CODE]

                                       

                                      to a page break (ASCII 12), then the initial header and the duplicate would be on odd pages, and the cheque/check details would be on even pages. But I can't yet find a search and replace methodology to ensure that that happens throughout the document.

                                       

                                      On the whole this does not seem to be a trivial exercise, regardless of its deceptively simple layout. :confused:

                                        • Help
                                          Grant Perkins

                                          On the whole this does not seem to be a trivial exercise, regardless of its deceptively simple layout. :confused:[/quote]

                                           

                                          I'm tending to agree with that. I keep getting almost there but not quite. Dumping the duplicates is proving harder than it should.

                                           

                                          I can create a page header template using the 3 lines starting with Vendor ID and that works fine but for some reason starts with page 2 rather than page 1 (Using PAGE()). No big deal, but difficult to trust it.

                                           

                                          So I considered using a match field 'filter' but fell foul of the V10 'Cleared by' problem when using multiple footers (for Check print fields and Vendor address.) Previously confirmed by Ken Indorato and promised as a fix in the (now imminent?) point release.

                                           

                                          In any case I don't think it will work with multiple voucher lines since the footer 'Cleared by' is upwards looking and needs to be based on a detail record ... which means on the last detail above the footer would be connected. I think. May have misunderstood that.

                                           

                                          On good thing is that the OLD FORM POSTAL TRAP seems to be ideal for the address footer identification, at least as far as the sample data is concerned. There are one or two caveats to that though in terms of defining and using it with variable width lines. Stuff I am just not sure about.

                                           

                                          My approach implies grabbing several lines as complete lines and then slice an dice them later in the table. The quoted CSV format should make that easy.

                                           

                                          I'm not sure what to do about the summary line in each detail section. I would question the need for it but it would provide a quality check opportunity for when (if) any documents are re-printed.

                                           

                                          Anyone have any observations or comments on this so far?

                                           

                                          Brent, it's pretty close at the moment based on the sample data but I have a few concerns about things like data quality (especially for names and addresses!) and how it might affect the process in obscure ways somewhere down the road. Therefore your observations about creating the process and leaving it to run unmonitored and unmanaged (presumably unless there are some planned changes where any adaptations are taken into account) lead me to the conclusion that we need to think this through carefully just to ensure that the solution, whether simple or complex, is robust enough to deal with any data thrown at it.

                                           

                                           

                                          Any comments very welcome.

                                           

                                          Grant

                                            • Help
                                              Grant Perkins

                                              Ok, rediscovered page 1. Seems that the 'multiple footer' problem is a factor there as well. Or maybe it's the type of footer - floating trap selected on line 2 of a 2 line sample.

                                               

                                              Just don't really know at the moment.

                                               

                                              If that would work I am almost there except for some typical slicing and dicing to extract the individual field values from some single field line extractons I have implemented so far.

                                               

                                              I used that approach for the Page Header and (if it would work) check amount footer templates because I am not trapping using the floating trap principle so the fuctionality to vary the data width of the fields when parsing the line will not be available. It's no big deal to extract an entire line and slice and dice since we have the CSV presentation to help us define the slice points.

                                               

                                              In addition to trap the Check amount line I trapped on the word 'cents' on line 2. This means that 'Cents' is not captured in the field and we need to append the word to the extracted data using a calculated field before writing to the database. Easy job.

                                               

                                              So, with the Multiple Footer fix, hopefully, we have a good extraction.

                                               

                                              Without it  ... I think we are in for a lot more work and a multipass process OR some rather creative work rounds.

                                               

                                              Time to contact Ken Indorato to see where we stand with the point release I think.

                                               

                                               

                                              Grant

                                                • Help
                                                  Olly Bond

                                                  Hello Grant,

                                                   

                                                  I've heard that 10.01 should be "soon" and DataPump v10 is "scheduled before 31 August" - but I've nothing definite.

                                                   

                                                  Hello Brent,

                                                   

                                                  You mentioned that you're hoping to run this automatically somehow. Are you using DataPump? If you use v10 modelling then you'll need DataPump v10...

                                                   

                                                  Best wishes,

                                                   

                                                  Olly

                                                    • Help
                                                      Grant Perkins

                                                      Hi Olly,

                                                       

                                                      Yes I remember seeing some sort of indication that the V10 point update was likely fairly soon.

                                                       

                                                      I PM'd Ken yesterday about it and what I seem to have found - which seems a little different to the original problem where he commented on the likely fix availability.

                                                       

                                                       

                                                      Grant

                                                        • Help
                                                          Grant Perkins

                                                          Ken kindly replied to my PM and confirmed that the point release should be quite soon but is currently not able to indicate a date.  The particular problem I think I have found is not one Ken is aware of so we cannot be sure the the point release would address it. So, what to do?

                                                           

                                                          Brent, how urgent is your requirement?

                                                           

                                                          I'm slightly concerned about setting off with you in tow on a complex solution if a simple one may be just around the corner but on the other hand I don't feel that the information we have access to at the moment is conclusive, one way or the other, about the availability of a fix. Far from it. We just don't know.

                                                           

                                                          Is time on our side or against us?

                                                           

                                                           

                                                          Grant

                                                            • Help
                                                              brent quick

                                                              Brent, how urgent is your requirement?

                                                              /QUOTE

                                                               

                                                              Pretty urgent.  I apologize for not getting back sooner, but I was out on vacation.  I am considering the Datawatch "Let Us Build Your Difficult Report Models" option. 

                                                               

                                                              Anyone ever use?

                                                               

                                                              Thanks for all your help!

                                                • Help
                                                  Grant Perkins

                                                  Grant,

                                                   

                                                  I believe that the correct "focus" would be check specific, in that the database uses the check number as the unique ID for a transaction. We have two tables setup, one for the header information and one for the details. Check number, vendor information, amount, etc go to the header table while details about the specific vouchers go to the detail table. We expect to have the header information repeated and our SSIS package deals with this fact by looping and comparing cuurent check number with prior check number and if same skips the write to the header table but writes to the detail table.

                                                   

                                                  As to being normalized, we grab the line, parse it, and then store the individual values in separate fields.

                                                   

                                                  Hope this makes the issue clearer and again thanks for the help.[/quote]

                                                   

                                                  OK, so that soound like we need to go detail for detail, therefoee the voucher lines are the detail, Vendor data is an append, check value/words and address to be footers.

                                                   

                                                  In theory.

                                                   

                                                  Just the duplication issue to work around but something will come out of it.

                                                   

                                                  Failing that ...

                                                   

                                                  take the whole detail record to be Vendor ID down through check values and treat the address as a footer. Make the vouchers a single field multi-line field and slice and dice later.

                                                   

                                                  A 2 pass approach - one for vouchers and check (Document?) number and the other for 'the rest' could also work well.

                                                   

                                                  But which is best? That's the question ....

                                                   

                                                  More later.

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                  Grant

                                                    • Help
                                                      brent quick

                                                      To All,

                                                       

                                                      If it is just not possible or reasonable in the current format please let me know.  I can let the client know and we can go from there.  If it is possible but very complex, then I would need to know how reliable it will be?  The idea is that we design and deploy the solution and do not need to monitor and manage it.

                                                       

                                                      Thanks again.

                                                      • Help
                                                        Olly Bond

                                                        Hello Brent,

                                                         

                                                        The "mirror" repeated vendor data is quite a nice challenge, but I think it can help. You obviously want to trap it at least once, and presumably, as if the data you choose for your detail template occurs in between, you would expect to have a choice of using append or footer templates to handle the vendor information.

                                                         

                                                        I'd be tempted to grab a lot of data fairly crudely and do more work in the table than in the report window, especially with Grant's point about multiple footers possibly being necessary and perhaps having issues in v10.00.

                                                         

                                                        It should be possible to work out how many models are needed from the a schematic diagram of the report layout - if we know that we have three bits of data (D, A and F, say) and we know that for each data of type D there's only one matching type A and one type F, then we trap D as the detail, and depending on layout, perhaps A as append and F as footer.

                                                         

                                                        If the relationships between the data types are more complicated, then we might have to trap A as the detail once, export that to a lookup table, and bring it back in as an external lookup for a second model that uses D as the detail.

                                                         

                                                        Where things get a little trickier is when you have missing detail records - each data type that can be empty yet still needs to be recorded adds an extra model. Also, if the layout does require multiple levels of footer then we might want to err on the side of caution and do the work in extra stages rather than risk errors.

                                                         

                                                        Given that the vendor data appears above and below (and even if you can't avoid trapping it twice there are various tricks to only count it once), this shouldn't be too tricky.

                                                         

                                                        As ever, a bigger sample report, and an Excel example of the desired output would be helpful.

                                                         

                                                        Best wishes,

                                                         

                                                        Olly

                                                          • Help
                                                            brent quick

                                                            Hello Brent,

                                                             

                                                            The "mirror" repeated vendor data is quite a nice challenge, but I think it can help. You obviously want to trap it at least once, and presumably, as if the data you choose for your detail template occurs in between, you would expect to have a choice of using append or footer templates to handle the vendor information.

                                                             

                                                            I'd be tempted to grab a lot of data fairly crudely and do more work in the table than in the report window, especially with Grant's point about multiple footers possibly being necessary and perhaps having issues in v10.00.

                                                             

                                                            It should be possible to work out how many models are needed from the a schematic diagram of the report layout - if we know that we have three bits of data (D, A and F, say) and we know that for each data of type D there's only one matching type A and one type F, then we trap D as the detail, and depending on layout, perhaps A as append and F as footer.

                                                             

                                                            If the relationships between the data types are more complicated, then we might have to trap A as the detail once, export that to a lookup table, and bring it back in as an external lookup for a second model that uses D as the detail.

                                                             

                                                            Where things get a little trickier is when you have missing detail records - each data type that can be empty yet still needs to be recorded adds an extra model. Also, if the layout does require multiple levels of footer then we might want to err on the side of caution and do the work in extra stages rather than risk errors.

                                                             

                                                            Given that the vendor data appears above and below (and even if you can't avoid trapping it twice there are various tricks to only count it once), this shouldn't be too tricky.

                                                             

                                                            As ever, a bigger sample report, and an Excel example of the desired output would be helpful.

                                                             

                                                            Best wishes,

                                                             

                                                            Olly[/QUOTE]

                                                             

                                                            Olly,

                                                             

                                                            Thanks for all the help and the proj and mod files.

                                                              • Help
                                                                brent quick

                                                                Having gotten Olly to do all the work (I cannot say thank you enough) I am left one question, "How do I run four different projects on a single file?"

                                                                 

                                                                I know I am a total newbie and appreciate all the help this forum has provided.

                                                                  • Help
                                                                    Data Kruncher

                                                                    To execute all four projects sequentially, create a little batch file to do the work for you.

                                                                     

                                                                    If you'll need to run all of the pre-defined project exports then a file similar to this should do the trick:

                                                                     

                                                                    START /WAIT "Pass 1" "C:\Program Files\Monarch\Program\Monarch.exe" /prj:"C\:Folder\Project1.xprj" /pxall

                                                                    START /WAIT "Pass 2" "C:\Program Files\Monarch\Program\Monarch.exe" /prj:"C:\Folder\Project2.xprj" /pxall

                                                                    START /WAIT "Pass 3" "C:\Program Files\Monarch\Program\Monarch.exe" /prj:"C:\Folder\Project3.xprj" /pxall

                                                                    "C:\Program Files\Monarch\Program\Monarch.exe" /prj:"C:\Folder\Project4.xprj" /pxall[/code]

                                                                     

                                                                    For more information about running Monarch via the command line, see the online help under "command lines, using Monarch ones", or give my [URL="http://********************/tips/monarch-batch-file-generator"]free Monarch batch utility[/URL] a spin.

                                                                     

                                                                    HTH,

                                                                    Kruncher

                                                                      • Help
                                                                        brent quick

                                                                        Kruncher,

                                                                         

                                                                        I have used your great utility on the other three check files that I needed some level of "automation" on processing.  And I used the provided code (modified to match my parameters) and it runs but the end result is not to be found.  I think the issue is that the projects define an export location (G:\Export\CoreData.mdb) that does not exist and I cannot figure out how to modify it.

                                                                         

                                                                        Thanks!

                                                                          • Help
                                                                            Joe Berry

                                                                            Brent,

                                                                             

                                                                            The Monarch utility program (usually located at c:\Program Files (x86)\Monarch\Program\MonarchU.exe) will help you change the export location in a project.  You can also edit the XPRJ file directly if you are up to it.

                                                                             

                                                                            Joe

                                                                              • Help
                                                                                brent quick

                                                                                Brent,

                                                                                 

                                                                                The Monarch utility program (usually located at c:\Program Files (x86)\Monarch\Program\MonarchU.exe) will help you change the export location in a project.  You can also edit the XPRJ file directly if you are up to it.

                                                                                 

                                                                                Joe[/QUOTE]

                                                                                 

                                                                                Joe,

                                                                                 

                                                                                Thanks for the pointer I would have never thought to use a separate program.

                                                                              • Help
                                                                                brent quick

                                                                                Kruncher,

                                                                                 

                                                                                I have used your great utility on the other three check files that I needed some level of "automation" on processing.  And I used the provided code (modified to match my parameters) and it runs but the end result is not to be found.  I think the issue is that the projects define an export location (G:\Export\CoreData.mdb) that does not exist and I cannot figure out how to modify it.

                                                                                 

                                                                                Thanks![/QUOTE]

                                                                                 

                                                                                OK - that is not the problem.  I have used the utility to redo all my locations and still no success.

                                                                                 

                                                                                Here is the contents of my batch file.

                                                                                START /WAIT "Pass 1" "C:\Program Files\Monarch\Program\Monarch.exe" /prj:"C:\Data\Check Examples\GP\Append-Detail.xprj" /pxall

                                                                                START /WAIT "Pass 2" "C:\Program Files\Monarch\Program\Monarch.exe" /prj:"C:\Data\Check Examples\GP\Footer-One.xprj" /pxall

                                                                                START /WAIT "Pass 3" "C:\Program Files\Monarch\Program\Monarch.exe" /prj:"C:\Data\Check Examples\GP\Footer-Two.xprj" /pxall

                                                                                "C:\Program Files\Monarch\Program\Monarch.exe" /prj:"C:\Data\Check Examples\GP\Assemble.xprj" /pxall

                                                                                /CODE

                                                                                  • Help
                                                                                    Olly Bond

                                                                                    Hello Brent,

                                                                                     

                                                                                    The Utility - I should have explained this in an email - will need to be used to modify all the paths of the source report, the models for each project, of exports, and of external lookups.

                                                                                     

                                                                                    HTH,

                                                                                     

                                                                                    Olly

                                                                                      • Help
                                                                                        brent quick

                                                                                        Hello Brent,

                                                                                         

                                                                                        The Utility - I should have explained this in an email - will need to be used to modify all the paths of the source report, the models for each project, of exports, and of external lookups.

                                                                                         

                                                                                        HTH,

                                                                                         

                                                                                        Olly[/QUOTE]

                                                                                         

                                                                                        Olly,

                                                                                         

                                                                                        I have modified all items in the various projects (except the "External Model" references to C:\Users\Public\Documents\Monarch\Models\UserDefinedFunctions.xmod) and created a DB to hold the temp work, but I still do not get any output.

                                                                                         

                                                                                        Thanks for all your help.

                                                                                          • Help
                                                                                            brent quick

                                                                                            Would it make a difference if I do not have the Pro version of Monarch?

                                                                                             

                                                                                            The flow of the projects are as follows:

                                                                                             

                                                                                            1. Read the file and write to a mdb file using a "Unique" filter.

                                                                                            2. Read the file in a different way and write to a mdb.

                                                                                            3. Read the file in a different way and write to a mdb.

                                                                                            4. Read the mdb and output as excel.

                                                                                             

                                                                                            Thanks!

                                                                                              • Help
                                                                                                RalphB _

                                                                                                Yes,  The standard version can only read reports.  It will not open databases, spreadsheets,pdf's and the like.

                                                                                                 

                                                                                                If you are going to work with other forms than just plain reports, the Pro version is well worth the extra costs.

                                                                                                 

                                                                                                We have been using the Pro version since 2003 (V6) and I don't know what we'd do if we didn't have it.

                                                                                                • Help
                                                                                                  brent quick

                                                                                                  Would it make a difference if I do not have the Pro version of Monarch?

                                                                                                  /QUOTE

                                                                                                   

                                                                                                  Yes - That was the problem.