No, the command and cms stages are documented to write all command output
before writing the return code to the secondary stream, which is easily
verified.
The stall occurs because command was stuck writing the return code before
it posted eof on its primary. A simple elastic stage on the second stream
takes care of that.


--
Mike Harding
z/VM System Support

[email protected]
[email protected]
(925) 672-3922 | (925) 672-4403 (h)
(925) 323-2070 (m)
/sp


CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List <[email protected]> wrote on
01/11/2018 01:33:54 PM:

> From: Rob van der Heij <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Date: 01/11/2018 01:33 PM
> Subject: Re: getting the RC from third party commands
> Sent by: CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List <[email protected]>
>
> On 11 January 2018 at 20:29, Miguel Soltero Diaz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > Most of the code is REXX. I thought we could use PIPES to do the work.
> >
>
> Yes, you could. I most certainly would. Maybe a bit ambitious as your
first
> real project with CMS Pipelines.
>
> What the trivial examples did not show you is that "command" takes a
stream
> of commands to issue. That makes sense when you generate the commands
from
> another source.
>
> For each command issued, the return code is written to the secondary
> output, then the command response is written to the primary output. The
> reason for your pipeline stall is that the "fanin" expects to read
primary
> input first, then secondary input. If you really just wanted to merge the
> two, you could "faninany" (and get the return code first) or you "buffer"
> the command response and put the return code after it (but that only
makes
> sense when you just issue one command).
>
> What I would probably do is to use the return code of the VMSECURE
command
> to track which commands failed, so that you can review them, or correct
> them, or whatever makes sense. I've done things like that when running
> commands on a group of Linux guests and sometimes those things would fail
> for unexpected reasons to be explored.
>
> Sir Rob the Plumber
>

Reply via email to