On 6 May 2008 12:34:26 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gibney, Dave >> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 2:25 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: VSAM / COBOL question - redux (fwd) >> >> Aside from the fact that you might be improving their code :) >> >> I thought you engaged in the splitting exercise to separate Production >> from Development. If so, why is a "Production" file being >> shared at all. >> Make them make a copy. > >I totally agree with that idea. But I have been shot down many times. >They feel that the absolutely MUST read the actual Production file. What >they do, at times, is run a test job under their ID to extract >production data. Once they have it working in test, then they create a >"production special" job to actually extract the data to a production >file for some other processing. But they don't want to test their code >against the test data, they test against the production data. I guess so >that they can be sure that it will actually run when presented with the >data in the production file. > >Another reason is that management is not being "penny foolish" and >demanding that any DASD allocations be justified. It is difficult to >justify making a copy of production data for testing when the actual >production data can be used instead. At least from what I understand. >Again, I disagree with this philosophy. But I'm just a grunt. What does HIPAA (or whatever the spelling is) say about having test access to true production data? What does it say about having copies that are not obfuscated?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
