Is there a tool which can take 1000 Seperate HL7 Messages and combine them into a single document for 7edit? I need to run a test, and if I can do one document and choose send all, it will be better than me running it manually for each of these 1000 messages.
Yes, There exist a way to combine those messages in a single file. You can do that using any integration engine, I will take Mirth in this case.
Follow these steps in sequential order
Download Mirth Connect from here using the .exe installer (in case you don't have it).
Setup your account and do initial configuration on your local system.
Create a Channel called Appending Channel, put Source inbound and outbound connector as HL7v2.x.
Go to Source Tab, Put Connector type as File Reader. Give the location of the directory where your messages will reside(D:\x\read in my case). Make sure you have the directory shared
You can make Delete file after read as a Yes, which will prune the files after they are read from this location.If you do a NO, then specify where you want to move those files to.
Put Process Batch files as a No.
Go to Destinations tab, create a Destination called as Appender and make it a File Writer type.
Give the directory(D:\x\Output in my case) where your final file will be placed.Give the file name as final.txt.
Choose Append on the file exists tab.
In Template, Drag Raw Data from the list on the right hand side, and put it here or else what you can do is type ${message.rawData} in the template section.
Save Channel and Deploy it.
Place all your messages in the read folder (mentioned above), and wait for Mirth to poll the folder (default setting is 1000 ms).
Once that is done, go to final.txt to see all the messages appended in the same file.
The downside is that even though this process is 100 percent working, the message thus appended will not be seperated by any means. So it will look like below
|2688684|||||||||||||||||||||||||199912271408||||||002376853MSH|^~\&|EPIC|EPICADT|
^ End of first message
You don't need any tool for that. 7edit is able to read multi-message files. You just need to append each message into one single text file like this (two ADT messages):
MSH|^~\&|SystemA|CompanyA|SystemB|CompanyB|20121116122025||ADT^A01|101|T|2.5||||||UNICODE UTF-8
EVN|A01|20130823080958
PID|||1000||Lastname^Firstname
PV1||I
MSH|^~\&|SystemA|CompanyA|SystemB|CompanyB|20121116122026||ADT^A01|102|T|2.5||||||UNICODE UTF-8
EVN|A01|20130823080958
PID|||1000||Lastname^Firstname
PV1||I
Open this file with 7edit and you will see this (multiple messages):
Now you can send all messages at once by pressing on Send and then select All Messages:
It is that simple - no other tool necessary (just to make the append in one file maybe)
You could also try to use HL7Browser (www.nule.org), a tool that is similar to 7Edit, with less features but free.
You should be able to open many single HL7 messages files, HL7Browser will cache them in its viewer and should allow you to save them all to a single file.
Hope helps
Davide
if you have multiple HL7 files in one folder and want to combine them into 1 hl7 file, you can do following:
create a batch file in this folder named combine.cmd
write following into this batch file
del combined.hl7
for %%f in (*.hl7) do type "%%f" >> combined.hl
move combined.hl combined.hl7
run this batch file
result: all hl7 files in this folder are combined into a single file called "combined.hl7"
Related
I need to move several hundred files from a Windows source folder to a destination folder together in one operation. The files are named sequentially (e.g. part-0001.csv, part-002.csv). It is not known what the final file in the sequence will be called. The files will arrive in the source folder over a number of weeks and it is not ascertainable when the final one will arrive. The users want to use a trigger file (i.e. the arrival of a spefic named file in the folder e.g. trigger.txt) to cause flow to start. My first two thoughts were using a first ListFile processor as an input to a second, or the input to an ExecuteProcess processor that would call a script to start the second one, however, neither of these processors accept an input, so I am a bit stumped as to how I might achieve this, or indeed if it is possible with NiFi. Has anyone encountered this use case, and if so how did you resolve it?
So I'm a complete rookie with NiFi and when I was trying it out for the first time, I just ran a single "GetFile" processor and set it to a fairly important directory, and now all of the files are gone. I poked around in the Content Repository, and it would appear that there are a whole lot of files there that are in some unknown format. I am assuming those are the files from my HD, but are now in "FlowFile" format. I also noticed that I can look at the provenance records and download them one by one, but there are several thousands...so that is not an option.
So if I'm looking to restore all of those to those files, I imagine I would need to read all of those in the content repository as flowfiles, and then do a PutFile. Any suggestions on how to go about this? Thanks so much!
If you still have the flowfiles in a queue, add a PutFile processor to another directory (not your important one) and move the queue over to it (click the queue that has the flowfiles in it and drag the little blue square at the end of the relationship over to the new PutFile). Run the PutFile and let it drain out. The files might not come out like-for-like, but the data will be there (assuming you didnt drop any flowfiles).
Don't develop flows on important directorties that you don't have backups for. Copy a data subset to a testing dir.
Can webmethods file port read files in specific sequence? like if i have file 001.xml, 003.xml, 002.xml in the monitoring folder can webmethods be configured/customized to read file in filename sequence like 001.xml, 002.xml, 003.xml?
AFAIK, the files are read in no particular order. In order to process them in some order, you'd probably have to read them, publish an event (containing the file name among other data) or store the file somewhere, and then process the published events / stored files as you like.
i am working on a system that has 2 parts. the parts are as follow:
1- a producer application that generate and append files in space A, and i cannot modify it ( i must not make noise for this part).
2- a transformer application that copies the files from space A(near the part1) to Space B.
. If part 2 starts to copy a file from A to B and during the copying of the file, part1 wants to append the same file, the part1 will stopped, because the file is under control of part2.
I want to if the part1 wants to append the file, control of the file granted to part 1, and it's not important to what happens for part2.
IS it possible to do that in windows??
If you are working within one computer system (not via network), then in general the correct way would be to monitor the writes, made by part 1, as they happen, and copy the written data on-the-fly. This is achieved using a file system filter driver, which intercepts write operations and captures the data being written.
I got an application which is polling on a folder continuously. Once any file is ftp to the folder, the application has to move this file to some other folder for processing.
Here, we don't have any option to verify whether ftp is complete or not.
One command "lsof" is suggested in the technical forums. It got a file description column which gives the file status.
Since, this is a free bsd command and not present in old versions of linux, I want to clarify the usage of this command.
Can you guys tell us your experience in file verification and is there any other alternative solution available?
Also, is there any risk in using this utility?
Appreciate your help in advance.
Thanks,
Mathew Liju
We've done this before in a number of different ways.
Method one:
If you can control the process sending the files, have it send the file itself followed by a sentinel file. For example, send the real file "contracts.doc" followed by a one-byte "contracts.doc.sentinel".
Then have your listener process watch out for the sentinel files. When one of them is created, you should process the equivalent data file, then delete both.
Any data file that's more than a day old and doesn't have a corresponding sentinel file, get rid of it - it was a failed transmission.
Method two:
Keep an eye on the files themselves (specifically the last modification date/time). Only process files whose modification time is more than N minutes in the past. That increases the latency of processing the files but you can usually be certain that, if a file hasn't been written to in five minutes (for example), it's done.
Conclusion:
Both those methods have been used by us successfully in the past. I prefer the first but we had to use the second one once when we were not allowed to change the process sending the files.
The advantage of the first one is that you know the file is ready when the sentinel file appears. With both lsof (I'm assuming you're treating files that aren't open by any process as ready for processing) and the timestamps, it's possible that the FTP crashed in the middle and you may be processing half a file.
There are normally three approaches to this sort of problem.
providing a signal file so that when your file is transferred, an additional file is sent to mark that transfer is complete
add an entry to a log file within that directory to indicate a transfer is complete (this really only works if you have a single peer updating the directory, to avoid concurrency issues)
parsing the file to determine completeness. e.g. does the file start with a length field, or is it obviously incomplete ? e.g. parsing an incomplete XML file will result in a parse error due to the lack of an end element. Depending on your file's size and format, this can be trivial, or can be very time-consuming.
lsof would possibly be an option, although you've identified your Linux portability issue. If you use this, note the -F option, which formats the output suitable for processing by other programs, rather than being human-readable.
EDIT: Pax identified a fourth (!) method I'd forgotten - using the fact that the timestamp of the file hasn't updated in some time.
There is a fifth method. You can also check if the FTP Session is still active. This will work if every peer has it's own ftp user account. As long as the user is not logged off from FTP, assume the files are not complete.