09-23-05 10:52 PM
Nobody on this newsgroup was able to help me with this problem, so I opened
a
case with Microsoft. They confirmed it to be a bug, the details are attached
below. However, my workaround was slightly different. I moved the property
schema temporarily into the same project as the document schemas, created th
e
filter expression and then moved them back again.
You will also notice that the expression editor does not show intellisense
for the promoted properties, and the same workaround fixes this problem too.
Hope this info is useful to anyone else who experiences this problem.
Microsoft confirmed there is no hot fix for the problem, just workarounds.
Their synopsis is shown below:
Symptoms
=============================
When trying to access a promoted property in an expression or in a Receive
Shape Filter, the property may not be shown.
Cause
=============================
This can occur if the property schema is in a referenced project rather than
in the project containing the schema used.
Repro Steps
=============================
Create 2 BizTalk projects.
In Project 1, create a property schema with a field.
In Project 2, add a reference to Project 1
In Project 2, create a schema with an element and promote that element using
the property schema from Project 1
In Project 2, Add an orchestration and a receive shape. Mark the receive
shape as an Activate receive and then attempt to add a filter.
Look in the list for the promoted property. It's missing.
More Information / Workaround
=============================
If the schema and property schema both come from the same assembly, all
should be well. The issue here is that the property schema exists in a
separate assembly from the schema which uses it. When designing BizTalk
solutions, Orchestrations should be kept in a separate assembly from schemas
anyway, therefore, putting the schemas and their associated property schemas
together and then referencing that assembly from the orchestration project
will allow the property to be displayed in intellisense.
[ Post a follow-up to this message ]
|