Any ideas? Has someone figured out a way to reference the current package's properties (besides what's available from Dts.* ?
Thanks!
See the following topic:
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=20103&SiteID=1
|||I should clarify ... I want to know how to get the number of Errors. I already know how to pass the value back.|||
Why don't you want to use the error information available through dts.*?
Here is a useful link (although it uses the dts.* approach):
http://www.developerdotstar.com/community/node/327
NOTE: you can then push these values to a variable and pass it up to the parent package...
|||OK, ignore any parent/child aspects of my question.
Let's say your package has a bunch of errors, and sometimes you get a warning message:
The Execution method succeeded, but the number of errors raised (6) reached the maximum allowed (1);
I want to know how to get that "6" value, (i.e. I don't need to know any specific error info). It's obviously stored within the package -- I just want access to it.
Initially I was thinking I could code my way into the Package and retrieve the Errors Collection; then use its Count property:
CurrentPackage.Errors.Count
But, there's no easy way to do that, which is why I'm here.
|||You could put something in the OnError eventhandler that simply increments a variable every time it executes.
If another way exists, I don't know about it. perhaps Microsoft do. [Microsoft follow-up]
-Jamie
|||The Package object support the "Errors" property which you can call the "Count" method. Unfortunately you cannot get access to the package object inside script task. This is a design decision. The only way to get to property is via the programming object model.
I am not aware of any workaround beside Jamie's suggestion.
|||Since you are calling this from a parent package, you could run the child package through a script task, instead of the Execute Package task. That way, you could access the Package.Errors property of the child package.|||That's a neat idea, John. I hadn't thought of that. I was hoping to avoid recalculating a count that already existed, but for now Jamie's workaround seems to be the simplest solution so I'll go with that.
Thanks to all!
No comments:
Post a Comment