Referencing the Cube View Name in a BR as part of the Cube View Structure?

[db_pdx]

Hi all: I would like to reference the Cube View name in a Business Rule as part of the Cube View structure.  My current assessment is that this is not possible but thought I would check with the community to see if I've missed anything.

The goal is to manage all our Column Shares and Linked Drill Downs in a centralized repository which allows us to utilize common parameters on all reports.  This greatly simplifies both report writing and maintenance of these features across a wide swath of reports where the same column shares and linked drill downs are used.

I have the custom tables, prototype business rules, and parameters all working with a hardcoded cube view name. The next step would be to make it dynamic by referencing the cube view name itself.  Again, it doesn't look like this is possible but wanted to check if anyone has an idea for making this work.  My assumption is that this functionality would work in a dashboard where we have more control with load events, but ideally it works for standalone cube views as well.

Any ideas are welcomed!  Thanks,   -db

Mock example for reference that works:

Cube View: Test_Report

Cube View Name for Sharing All Columns: |!Shared_Columns!|

Parameter: Shared_Columns = {CSM_HelperQueries}{GetComponentsFromReportName}{ReportName=[Test_Report], Type=[Col]}

What I'd like to do but is not currently working:

Cube View: Test_Report

Cube View Name for Sharing All Columns: |!Shared_Columns!|

Parameter: Shared_Columns = {CSM_HelperQueries}{GetComponentsFromReportName}{ReportName=[|CVName|], Type=[Col]}

[JackLacava]

Unfortunately, Sharing properties (and a few other "structural" ones) seem to be elaborated before Substitution Variables are populated, so that strategy will not work. I have a feeling this came up before, and that there are technical reasons for this situation.

An alternative could be to generate artifacts via code, either directly in OS or by exporting and processing xml, in order to hardcode the necessary values in those properties.

[db_pdx]

Hey Jack: Thanks for confirming and the alternative suggestions.  Those are certainly options, and ones I'll think on, but probably not as clean as the method I was hoping for.  That said, this was a only concept being toyed with (and one that might fall into the 'pass the salt' category), so its acceptable if this is not possible.

Thanks,   -db

[JackLacava]

Or in the automation category 😅

[db_pdx]

Ha!  That's a good one as well.