Transaction Groups: Expression Item: A tag executor could not be created for the Item

Hi Guys,

I am having some issues with a transaction group, in particular a run-always expression item. When I try to start the transaction group I get the following messages in the status & events tab:

I have removed all items from the group so only the offending item is in the transaction group.
The target table has been adjusted so that only the ID, TimeStamp and item are columns.

The item is set up as a run always expression item that gets its value from a named query. The named query is simply a count of records.

I want the transaction group to record the initial count at the time the transaction group is started and every subsequent change in the count.

The timer section of the transaction group is configured as so:

The trigger section of the transaction group is configured as so:

Anyone have any ideas what I am doing wrong?

Cheers,

Iain

Well, you’ve shown us everything except for the setup of the offending item. :wink:

If I was to guess though, the column you’re wanting to write to doesn’t exist in your table.

Also, if you are looking for it for it to run on a value change, then get rid of both ‘execute once’ and ‘reset trigger’ options.

Hi Jordan,

Thanks for the quick response.
So the table is in MSSQL and all the columns exist:

DBTable

The named query looks like this.

SELECT
COUNT(*) AS “Value”
FROM SEAS_APP.SEAS_MATERIAL_HISTORY
WHERE SHOP_ORDER = :ShopOrder

And testing with a valid shop order returns a value.

The Run Always Expression Item is set up like so:

I have verified that the value passed into the named query is actually a shop order value by showing the tag in my perspective client.

I adjusted the trigger settings as suggested but am still getting this issue.

Cheers,

Iain

Hi Guys,

In the end I could not get this to work as I wanted.
I made a work around by creating a Memory Tag from Query (Query Tag).
I can then just add this tag to my transaction group in the normal manner.

Actually this way seems much cleaner that what I was trying to do in the first place.

Cheers,

Iain