Forum Discussion

SC's avatar
SC
New Contributor III
4 years ago

Derivative rules

Hi experts,

 

I have a group of GL accounts that I need to map to either an expense / revenue based on the sum of the balances.

I thought this would be easy enough with a derivative rule; first create an interim rule to aggregate the accounts and then create a final rule to check if the balance is greater / less than 0.

Finally, I have used the final derivative rule in my target account mapping.

But, this is not quite working as expected.

It seems to just add the negative balances of the individual GL accounts under the "_N" rule and the positive balances under "_P" rule, therefore both my expense and revenue account in OS ends with a balance.

Could you please suggest what I am doing wrong?

Regards,

S

 

 

Data Integration
Transformation

7 Replies

  • NicolasArgente's avatar
    NicolasArgente
    Valued Contributor
    4 years ago

    Hi SC,

    There are many ways to do that but to stick to your method can you try it like this :

    You do
    A#SwapProd = A#SwapProd_New and multiply by 1
    Then after you add a rule a bit like you did above that says
    A#SwapProd_New = A#SwapProd_P If positif
    A#SwapProd_New = A#SwapProd_N If Negative
    Can your try?
    Please give a thumbs up if it helps.
    Nic

  • Sai_Maganti's avatar
    Sai_Maganti
    Contributor II
    4 years ago

    My guess is that, in order for the first line in your DR to create an aggregation you must use all the dimensions including any attribute dimensions similar to this:

    E#[*]=All_Entities:F#[*]=All_Flow:IC#[*]=All_IC:UD1#[*]=All_UD1:UD2#[*]=All_UD2........:A1#[*]=All_A1:A2#[*]=All_A2......

    This will then create a one line sum for all your specified accounts and assign that sum to A#[Map_SwapProd] and then the next 2 rules should work fine.

  • SC's avatar
    SC
    New Contributor III
    4 years ago

    Thanks for your response Nic. So, you are saying I can't get this working through a >x  and <x operator, but I actually have to write a rule for this?

    Regards,

    S

    • NicolasArgente's avatar
      NicolasArgente
      Valued Contributor
      4 years ago

      You need one rule that adds them up. It is the first one with NEW in the name
      Then according to the total of the NEW you will know the sign

  • SC's avatar
    SC
    New Contributor III
    4 years ago

    Hi Nic,

    Based on what you suggested, this is what I tried:

     

    1. Aggregate the accounts into Map_SwapProd

    2. Multiply by 1 and create Map_SwapProd_New

    3. Check if Map_SwapProd_New >0 0r <0 and map to Map_SwapProd_Po / Map_SwapProd_Ne

     

    In my transformation rule, I then have Map_SwapProd_Po mapped to an expense account and Map_SwapProd_Ne mapped to a revenue account. So, the total balance can either go to an expense or  a revenue account.

     

    However, I still see data in both accounts and I can see that the GL accounts with negative balances are mapping to Map_SwapProd_Ne and the GL accounts with +ve balances mapping to Map_SwapProd_Po. This seems strange as I am creating both of them from Map_swapProd_New which should have the aggregate balance.

     

    Regards,

    S

    Regards,

    Sounak

     

  • OS_Pizza's avatar
    OS_Pizza
    Contributor III
    3 years ago

    I am trying to aggregate all my rows via target derivative. I am unable to get the syntax that you have mentioned.Can you see if the below syntax is correct?

    [V#[*]=All_View:E#[*]=All_Entities:A#[*]=All_Account:F#[*]=All_Flow:IC#[*]=All_IC:UD1#[*]=All_UD1:UD2#[*]=All_UD2:UD3#[*]=All_UD3:UD4#[*]=All_UD4:UD5#[*]=All_UD5:UD6#[*]=All_UD6:UD7#[*]=All_UD7:UD8#[*]=All_UD8]= Sum_all

  • AndreaF's avatar
    AndreaF
    Contributor III
    3 years ago

    The derivative rule would work as you expected if the Pov of the incoming data on all other dimensions was the same. each combination with different Ud1/Ud2/etc. members is considered as a different bucket.