Community

Change Batch Type via Script

What is the best way to programatically change the Batch-Type? We would like to import all PDFs through the same hot-folder and then assign the Batch-Type via a script. We get the information of the batch type out of the database.

What is the best practice here?

 

Regards

0

Comments

7 comments

  • Avatar
    Claus Nielsen

    I have the same problem/issue (http://www.capturedocs.com/thread/send-document-to-new-batch-type-based-on-found-field-value/)

    I'm thinking about exporting the document and importing again using hotfolder... 

    0
  • Avatar
    Scott Chau

    You can't do this programically.  Normally you want to set the batch type when you first send the image through.  If you want to modify the batch type after it has been sent, you can manually do it in the project setup station. 

    Other than that technically you modify the value in the FlexiCapture Database but that could get dangerous if you mess something up. 

    Otherwise if you need to change batch type, maybe do 2 pass workflow.  1st pass import in file and decide what batch to go to and then will export to folder. 2nd pass will pick up using hotfolder.  Each folder will have different batch type.

    0
  • Avatar
    Claus Nielsen

    Thanks for the head up Scott,

    I've came to the same conclusion that I'ved needed to export the documents to a hotfolder and importing them again into another batch type.

     

    Problem is that this would cause new licenses to be used. In Kofax Transformation Modules it's possible to route the document within the same batch so licenses are not count double.

    Thanks 

    0
  • Avatar
    Scott Chau

    Let’s approach this differently. What is your scenario that you need to change Batch Type? Batch type is just a workflow setting. I.e. what kind of workflow are you trying to change in mid processing?

    0
  • Avatar
    Claus Nielsen

    Let's say I scan some technical document and 3 groups of people

    "Group A" scan some documents and never sees ABBYY

    "Group B" validates documents in 1st level

    "Group C" validates documents in 2nd level

    "A" scans document using a MFP to ABBYY

    "B" is a validation operator and validates everything. 

    The batch is perhaps 20 document and 2 of those that can't be validated due to missing information on the document ect.

    The 18 documents should be send asap to some backend system for further processing. On the doc. definition we have a checkbox  "Mark for further investigation" 

    If this checkbox is set, all validation rules are skipped so that "B" can continue to the next document.

    When exporting all 20 docs., 2 of them must go to the "C"-group for validation and 18 exports as normal.

    That could easily be setup in export that it's based on field content, but then I have to import the 2 documents again (license count).

    If checkbox set -> Export to hotholder

    If checkbox not set -> Export to backend system

    The whole idea is to skip the double license count, because I can just create a special stage right after Recognition that send the 2 document directly to Export if some information is missing, and then "group b" would never see it anyway...

    0
  • Avatar
    Scott Chau

    Claus,

    From the sound of it, this can be setup in a custom workflow of a single Batch type. Basically you can have multiple verification stages with different entry condition. Also disable processed whole batch in the stages. So in your scenario there would be 2 verification stages

    1st stage would verify normally. If they check mark for further investigation, it would go to the second stage of verification based on that entry condition. The other 18 document would skip verification stage 2 and go straight to export.

    0
  • Avatar
    Claus Nielsen

    Hi Scott,

    Ahh, and then I define on the 2 Verification stages the roles of the users that needs to have access? 

    Again, my script stage after Recognition could send documents directly to 2nd. Verification I've guess because it has set the checkbox directly ?

    That would work - thanks for the heads up regarding this issue.

    Thanks! :-)

    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.