Possible changes to iw_file handling in 6.1 SP1

lhdavis

Prior to my 6.1 SP1 upgrade, the following workflow code worked in 6.0 (yes it may not be the most efficient and there are spelling errors but I inheritated it). The workflow is a slightly modified custom version of the solutions/configurable_author_submit.wft

<---Start original code --->
# Take the list of files in 'iw_file' and sort them in unencoded form.
my @submit_file = (__ELEM__('iw_file') ? sort __VALUE__('iw_file') : ());

my $include_metadata_task = 0;
my $metadata_extentions = 'html|htm|asp|cfm|doc|dot|xls|ppt|pps|mpp|pub|vsd|pdf|rtf|txt' ;

for (my $i=0; $i < __ELEM__('iw_file'); ++$i)
{

my $file_name = __VALUE__("iw_file[$i]");
my $tempvar = $file_name;
$file_name =~ /\.([^\.]+)$/;
my $extention = $1;
$include_metadata_task = 1
if ( $extention =~ /$metadata_extentions/ );
<---End original code --->

Now in 6.1 SP1, it provides an error on the workflow instantiation screen stating that I have an "Invalid Workflow Template - utf8 version 2 required..." if I have more than two files attached to the workflow. It doesn't throw an error with one or two files but also doesn't have any value for $file_name either when I write out the values to a log file.

I have a workaround that does the following, basically replacing all instances of iw_file with my submit_file array and values:

<---Start workaround code --->
my $include_metadata_task = 0;
my $metadata_extentions = 'html|htm|asp|cfm|doc|dot|xls|ppt|pps|mpp|pub|vsd|pdf|rtf|txt' ;

for (my $i=0; $i < @submit_file; ++$i)
{
my $file_name = $submit_file[$i];
my $tempvar = $file_name;
$file_name =~ /\.([^\.]+)$/;
my $extention = $1;
$include_metadata_task = 1
if ( $extention =~ /$metadata_extentions/ );
<---End workaround code --->

My question is why did my original code stop working in 6.1 SP1. What am I missing?

This was originally posted here

Luke Davis
Open Technology Group, Inc.
luke.davis@med.va.gov

Dwayne

I don't see anything wrong with the original version. Both versions should behave identically, based on the documentation. It looks to me as if it may be a bug related to how indexed TAG elements are handled within the __VALUE__directive. I'd send this on to IWOV support, if I were you.

--

Current project: TS 5.5.2/6.1 W2K