Hi Mark, I think you are mistaken here.
<quote> $SERVER$ LIKE (( "%" + "Server A" ) + "%" ) is not programmatically the same as $SERVER$ LIKE "%Server A%" </quote> Yes is it. '(( "%" + "Server A" ) + "%" )' is logically equivalent to "%Server A%", because by definition based on how BMC have defined the qualification syntax, the evaluator will process everything in parentheses to come to a final value for the right-hand side of the expression before it uses the resultant value for the LIKE operator. It will combine "%" and "Server A" to get the string "%Server A", and then it will combine the resultant "%Server A" and "%" to get the string "%Server A%". At that point, it will evaluate the LIKE operator using the final string value (or the $SERVER$ reference if that hasn't been evaluated yet). Whether it's a dynamically built string or a string literal is irrelevant, because they way they have defined the syntax, it's the end result of the evaluation of the expression that matters, and by definition, those two expressions are equivalent, because the resultant string is the same. The fact that they're not treated the same would indicate a flaw in their code that processes qualification expressions. <quote> %text% isn't magic, it's a system variable that is populated at runtime. </quote> That's only on Windows and is entirely outside the context of AR System. Within AR system, the % has no special meaning except in qualifications where it behaves as a wildcard character. <quote> If $SERVER$ <> "Server A" the two are different. </quote> That is correct. However, the issue is that $SERVER$ _does_ equal "Server A", but the expression interpreter apparently only recognizes that when you use a build string rather than a single string literal. Since the two expressions are logically equivalent according to how they've defined the expression syntax, the fact that they are not treated the same, or that you have to use one qualification format in one context and the other format in another context indicates a problem in their expression interpreter. Lyle -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark Lev Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 10:28 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Anyway to read the ARDBC via workflow?- Resolved $SERVER$ LIKE (( "%" + "Server A" ) + "%" ) is not programmatically the same as $SERVER$ LIKE "%Server A%" "%Server A%" is a literal string, will always be what is between quotes. "%" + $SERVER$ + "%" is a computed dynamic string, with $SERVER$ being populated at run-time. If $SERVER$ <> "Server A" the two are different. %text% isn't magic, it's a system variable that is populated at runtime. This is for flexibility, and server independence in the case of reserved word $SERVER$. $USER$ is a system variable that populates out to the logged in user, so that you don't need to hard code it in every instance or test. The same applies to $SERVER$, etc... Because of this, at times the interpreter may require that a dynamic format be used, rather than a literal format, so it can be properly managed. Thanks, Mark Mark Lev Sr. Systems Consultant 703-672-4390 732-859-5827 (cell) [email protected] ----------------------------------------------------------- RightStar Systems, Inc. 100 East Street SE, Suite 202 Vienna, VA 22180 USA ----------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Juan Ingles Sent: Thu 3/19/2009 12:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Anyway to read the ARDBC via workflow?- Resolved ** The only reason I can think of why it would be different is if %text% was something "magic" to the interpreter. Like windows trying to expand it as a environment variable, for instance. Juan Ingles -- On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Guillaume Rheault <[email protected]> wrote: ** I totally agree with you that $SERVER$ LIKE (( "%" + "Server A" ) + "%" ) should be the same as $SERVER$ LIKE "%Server A%", and I have assumed that in the past. I guess I should not assume the obvious.... -Guillaume -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Lyle Taylor Sent: Tue 03/17/09 1:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Anyway to read the ARDBC via workflow?- Resolved Perhaps I'm just overly critical. I come from a more hard-core programming background, so when I see things like this, I see it as poor design and/or lazy programming. If it's the nature of the beast, that's only because the beast was made like that, not because of technical limitations that drove this design. If two statements are interpreted the same but don't work the same, that's a bug in my opinion. The two statements are technically equivalent and should be treated exactly the same. You're philosophy is good, I just get worked up about these kinds of things in commercial software... Lyle -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ <mailto:ars__Platinum%20Sponsor:%20RMI%20Solutions%20ARSlist:> _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
