At 08:50 -0500 on 12/23/2015, Kurt Quackenbush wrote about Re: PTF
error clarification:
Is a return code of 4 more appropriate for PTFs not applied because of
error hold?
This is an interesting idea, which I'm curious to hear opinions on.
If doing a mass APPLY (not using the SELECT operand), and PTFs are
stopped because of a PE (ERROR HOLD), either directly or in a
requisite chain that is stuck because of a PE, what RC should be
used to identify this condition? RC=8? 4? 0? Other ideas?
Kurt Quackenbush -- IBM, SMP/E Development
I think that RC=4 is the correct RC for a MASS APPLY. I see a MASS
APPLY as a request to install all RECEIVED SYSMODS that have not yet
been APPLY'ed. Thus a PE HOLD is a warning that an SYSMOD can not be
APPLY'ed due to the PE status.
For a SELECT APPLY then issue a RC=8. In this case I am saying to
specifically APPLY the SYSMOD (as opposed to the MASS case where it
APPLYs IF there is no reason to not APPLY such as due to a PE status)
so the PE HOLD says that the SYSMOD should not be APPLY'ed and thus
the SELECT is an error.
In the MASS case I am asking to APPLY all SYSMODs that can
potentially be APPLY'ed (so long as there are not reasons to not
APPLY) that thus the RC=4/Warning that some did not get APPLY'ed. In
the SELECT case I say I want a designated SYSMOD APPLY'ed and the
RC=8/ERROR says I selected a SYSMOD that should not have been
SELECT'ed.
Note that a PE (or other) HOLD is not the only reason for a failure
to APPLY. Missing IFREQs and PREs are also reasons for blocking the
APPLY (either MASS selected or specifically SELECT'ed).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
