On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 12:54:09 +0000, Peter Relson <prel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The IBM requirement is to maintain the general "form" >of an automatable message Thanks, Peter, for confirming that messages are an official GUPI. People are very passionate about automation, but rarely do they understand it Even within IBM, it's tough to get all products to understand and follow these requirements. Just because they've never been bitten doesn't mean they never will. >so that automation on a message ID will continue to work. Just to clarify, this requirement includes message text. PTF's have been PE''d solely on unacceptable message text changes. >If that "form" needs to change, then a different message ID is supposed to be >used. This refers to complete message replacement (deleting the old message). Some products have had PE'd PTF's because they failed this requirement. E.g. A message has a meaning and some products have split that meaning. This is unacceptable because there is no notification that the message text remained the same but lost part of its meaning. Existing automation will no longer trigger for every occurrence prior to the PTF. >you can often add stuff at the end. This is the most acceptable message text change. >Generally, you can add new fill-in choices Let me qualify this because there is a risk of a PE'd PTF because a new fill-in field is inserted before an existing fill-in field.
