Re: [U2] What is true
To further complicate things, I was instructed at one job to use the IF VAR THEN syntax as this was treated a boolean operation and executed faster than IF VAR # ''. We were working on Prime Information at the time. A few years later I went to work for a VAR. I had made changes to the their programs at a customer site and used the IF VAR THEN construct. The code failed in testing. This was on an ADDS Mentor. I went back to the office and wrote a 3 line program of: VAR = 'ABC' IF VAR THEN CRT 'TRUE' ELSE CRT 'FALSE' END I got TRUE on the Prime box and FALSE on the ADDS. I wound up looking at a co-workers copy of THE PICK POCKET GUIDE. There is a chapter titled IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH. It explained in detail how different PICK systems determine true or false. It did not explain the Prime implementation but was very helpful. I changed my code to read IF VAR # '' THEN and my problem went away. Rich Sammartino ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] I Type Fields in Universe
Do you need to recatalog? Rich Sammartino - Original Message - From: randyleesmith randyleesm...@roadrunner.com To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:25:33 AM Subject: [U2] I Type Fields in Universe It's been a while since I messed with these things so I need to ask. The I type in question is a SUBR and calls code that returns the value I want the field to have. You compile the I type and it works fine. I then need to change the code, compile the code and even re-compile the I type again, it did not work. The field acts as before the last time I compiled it. I've found the new chances will only work after I delete attributes 16 - 20 in the I type and recompile it. Is there a better/other way? - I used to be an Optimist until I knocked over the glass. -- View this message in context: http://u2-universe-unidata.1073795.n5.nabble.com/I-Type-Fields-in-Universe-tp41330.html Sent from the U2 - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Wally Terhune
Congratulations Wally! You can remain on the list as a lurker. Rich - Original Message - From: Dan Goble dan.go...@interlinebrands.com To: U2 Users List u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 5:03:59 PM Subject: [U2] Wally Terhune Congratulations on your upcoming retirement. Thanks for all the support you have given us over the years for us Unidata guys. Your breadth of knowledge will surely be missed. Enjoy retirement, -Dan Dan Goble | Senior Systems Engineer Interline Brands, Inc. 804 East Gate Drive Suite 100, Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Office: 856.533.3110 | Mobile: 609.792.6855 E-mail: dan.go...@interlinebrands.com | Website: www.interlinebrands.com This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail in error and delete all copies of this message. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] User ID of a LOCKED record
In Unidata you could use the LOCKED clause followed by GETUSERNAME(STATUS()). Richard Sammartino - Original Message - From: Andy Krause akra...@rammutual.com To: U2 Users List u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 8:55:03 AM Subject: Re: [U2] User ID of a LOCKED record Thanks for all of the responses! It looks like LIST.READU -INTERNAL will do it. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Buss, Troy (Contractor, Logitek Systems) Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 7:05 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] User ID of a LOCKED record Also, on UV 11.1.1 the user name portion is broken. We had to work around it (by reading our own PID to USER table), but I understand a subsequent release addressed the issue. LIST.READU -INTERNAL Broken output: 11009371^677913942^0^2000^1^RU^ ^ ^333719*1^ 1606438775^34480532^0^5224^15^RU^ ^ ^270784^ 1718299426^1218558262^0^3692^15^RU^ ^ ^30742^ Original output: 814621824^1688564731^0^6896^82^RU^6896^DOMAIN\Joe.User^ZLIST.READUEX^ What they meant to say is that the USERNAME is not reported. Pid is there on 11.1.1. - - - - - - - - - - - - Problems Fixed in UniVerse Release 11.1.5 (Build 5757) UNV-5010UniVerse -- Beginning at UniVerse 11.1.1, the pid number of the UniVerse process holding a lock was no longer displayed in the LIST.READU output. This problem as been fixed. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Wjhonson Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 4:28 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] User ID of a LOCKED record LIST.READU -INTERNAL you don't need the EVERY to see record locks but how wild that -INTERNAL gives you the USER NAME ! And the regular LIST.READU does not (even though the documentation says it will) _ Scanned by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs. For more information please visit http://www.ers.ibm.com This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of the email or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately, by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. WARNING: Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of inaccuracies as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission. _ ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Case Statement with only two cases
The case statement can be faster if you put the condition with the most occurrences first. As soon as the 'true' condition is met, the program exits the case statement. The if-then-else construct took longer to evaluate. When processors were slow, there were gains to be had. Richard Sammartino - Original Message - From: Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 3:52:21 PM Subject: [U2] Case Statement with only two cases Is there a point in code like this BEGIN CASE CASE A = TEST; GOSUB DO.SOMETHING CASE 1; GOSUB DO.SOMETHING.ELSE END CASE versus this IF A = TEST THEN GOSUB DO.SOMETHING ELSE GOSUB DO.SOMETHING.ELSE Personally I see no advantage in making this a CASE Does the rest of the *Universe* agree with me? ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Detecting idle time in INPUT statement.
Don, I don't know about Universe but Unidata has the INPUT - FOR statement to do this. It looks like this... INPUT VAR,5_: FOR 1200 ELSE IF @SYSTEM.RETURN.CODE = -1 THEN VAR = '*'. It waits at the input prompt for 30 minutes, the @SYSTEM.RETURN.CODE is set to -1 to indicate a time out condition. The VAR = '*' is our exit character. Rich - Original Message - From: Don Robinson donr_w...@yahoo.com To: U2 listserver u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9:26:38 AM Subject: [U2] Detecting idle time in INPUT statement. Hello all, We are running Universe 10.1 on AIX with about 500 users. We have a problem with users opening up a record which puts a lock on it and just letting it sit at the INPUT statement for a long time. Most of the locking within the application does not use the LOCKED clause so when a second person needs the locked record, their session waits. What is the best way to detect the user hasn't typed anything for a period of time, say 2 minutes? This needs to be simple as we have no desire to rewrite the application! IIRC, some other MV systems have a timeout on the INPUT but I can't find anything about this in the UV manual. Thanks, Don Robinson ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] UniVerse over Solaris Logon Question.
We ran Unidata on Solaris. Try checking /etc/passwd. This is where the login account was stored on our configuration. Rich - Original Message - From: John Varney jvar...@soft-target-tech.com To: U2 Users List u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:04:52 AM Subject: Re: [U2] UniVerse over Solaris Logon Question. I recently went to work for a company that is running UniVerse over Solaris. This seems to be working really well. We are running ManFact and are setting up multi-plant operations. As part of the upgrade we are changing the live account from MANLIVE to something else. I'm not doing the upgrade as I kinda walked into the middle of it, and the person who is doing it seems very well versed in ManFact so no worries there. My question is where do we change the default login account? Come next Monday, people should not be logging into MANLIVE. We looked at the initial login script on Solaris but that just starts a uv session. Any ideas? ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1.20 Pick Flavor Selecting Multi-Values
Have you looked at SORT.TYPE? Rich - Original Message - From: Al DeWitt adew...@stylmark.com To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 3:52:12 PM Subject: [U2] Unidata 7.1.20 Pick Flavor Selecting Multi-Values I'm am trying to help out my users by helping them make sense of what they have done to themselves. The field in question, Bin Number, is alphanumeric. About three quarters of the entries are all numeric and one quarter are alphanumeric. Below is a perfect example of my issue. LIST INVWHS 27814*001 F1 F2 F3 12:43:18 NOV 10 2011 1 CPN*WH Qty On Hand Shipping Qty Bin Number 27814*001 158 070300 SO76127 My users want all the numeric sorted from lowest value to highest value as if the field was actually numeric. My thought was to add to V-desc fields. One that determines if the value is numeric or not (ALD.NUM.BIN) and the other is the length of the field(ALD.BIN.LN). This would sort based on the length of the value. The greater the length the greater the value. So the 10001 should print after and not in the vicinity of 1000 as it's doing now. My first question is: How do I make ALD.NUM.BIN report the condition of both values. As you can see below it only shows the first value. I'm thinking I need a -SUBR statement but can't find a list of them in the Unidata manuals. LIST INVWHS 27814*001 F3 ALD.NUM.BIN ALD.BIN.LN 12:45:51 NOV 10 2011 1 CPN*WH Bin Number Num Bin Bin Ln 27814*001 703001 5 SO76127 7 Here is the dictionary item (it was built using System Builder): Top of ALD.NUM.BIN in DICT INVWHS, 9 lines, 215 characters. 001: I 002: SUBR(SB.SMART.QUERY,'MK':@FM:'E;@1;C3;@6;X;Z#;I2;C1;J1;C0',@ID,@RECORD,@F ILE.NAME,@NV) 003: 004: Num Bin 005: 1R 006: MV 007: Assuming everything works correctly I need to modify my select statement: Before I change: SELECT INVWHS WITH WHS = 001 BY.EXP BIN Followed up with READNEXT CPN.WHS,BIN.LOCATION After I change my select to: SELECT INVWHS WITH WHS = 001 BY.EXP ALD.NUM.BIN BY.EXP ALD.BIN.LN BY.EXP BIN Which results in: Top of ALD.TEST004 in SAVEDLISTS, 1,657 lines, 33,139 characters. *---: L 1322: 27814*001ý1ü1ý-5ü-5 Top of ALD.TEST005 in SAVEDLISTS, 1,330 lines, 26,939 characters. *---: L 0447: 27814*001ý1ü2ý-5ü-5 How should I modify my READNEXT statement so that BIN.LOCATION returns the correct value for each value? Thanks. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] [UV] LIST.READU EVERY's waiters when there are writes w/o explicit readu.
What if you were writing to an empty file? Rich - Original Message - From: Mecki Foerthmann mec...@gmx.net To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 6:30:08 PM Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] LIST.READU EVERY's waiters when there are writes w/o explicit readu. Now why would anybody want to use a WRITE without a READU? I can possibly understand that somebody would want to do it with a WRITEV (i.e writing a flag on a record) but WRITE? And WRITE totally ignoring locking would be outright stupid. On 24/10/2011 22:28, Woodward, Bob wrote: I would think that because you are not trying to obtain the lock in a WRITE statement, it would not be classified as a waiter. True, it's waiting because of the lock but by not trying to obtain the lock, it's only waiting for the blockage to clear. If it were to be classified as a waiter then I would expect to see a LOCKED clause on the WRITE statement like there is on the READU. For that matter, I'd expect to see a WRITEU command as well and the standard WRITE to completely ignore locking. Just my guess, though. BobW -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 2:12 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: [U2] [UV] LIST.READU EVERY's waiters when there are writes w/o explicit readu. UV 10.2.10 on Windows is behaving differently from what I recall. Are my expectations out of line? Suppose Session A holds a readu lock; and Session B attempts a WRITE to same record withOUT!!! 1st explicitly getting the readu lock. Session B waits for Session A to release the lock before writing the record. While Session B is waiting, does it show up as a waiter in LIST.READU EVERY? I expected so, but it doesn't. Session A Session B _ ___ 1A. ED VOC DUMMY (this sets the readu lock.) 2A. (stay in editor)2B. run this: 01:OPEN 'VOC' TO F ELSE STOPM 'nope' 02: ***READU REC FROM F, 'DUMMY' ELSE NULL 03:WRITE '' TO F, 'DUMMY' 3A. Within ED: XEQ LIST.READU EVERY If I UN-comment line 2, LIST.READU EVERY shows something like this: Active Read Waiters: Owner Waiter Device Inode Userno Userno 746117947232860913 61163396 But when I comment out line 2, LIST.READU is silent. I have not yet explored what the deadlock daemon does. TIA, cds P.S. Yes, yes, Bad Form, Legacy Software, 20 min wait is configurable, . . . we can talk later. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] [UV] Obtaining a file creation date and time without locking it
Someone posted a program to do this a couple of years ago. I can post my version if needed. Rich Richard Sammartino Systems Analyst School District of Philadelphia 440 N Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19130 Phone (215) 400-5086 Fax (215) 400-4411 - Original Message - From: Jacques G. jacque...@yahoo.com To: U2 Users List u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2011 1:50:03 PM Subject: [U2] [UV] Obtaining a file creation date and time without locking it Hello, Currently I have code that does something like this: EQU TM.LIMIT TO 3 ;* File useable if created less than TM.LIMIT seconds ago. OPENSEQ PATH.HOUSE:ipcs.txt TO F.IPCS ELSE RETURN STATUS STAT FROM F.IPCS THEN CLOSESEQ F.IPCS IPCS.TM = STAT15 IPCS.DT = STAT16 SEC.PASSED = (DATE() - IPCS.DT) * 86400 SEC.PASSED += (TIME() - IPCS.TM) IF SEC.PASSED TM.LIMIT THEN RETURN ;* Too old can't use it END The problem with this approach, is that in order to query the file's internal date and time, I have to do an OPENSEQ which locks the file. This means that another process that may need to perform the same check has to wait for the lock to be released. Any way to open the file in a ReadOnly mode in UV so that It won't get locked ? Jacques ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] [UV] Uvsh exit status and @SYSTEM.RETURN.CODE
Phil, maybe you should try @USER.RETURN.CODE. I don't know if you can control the values in @SYSTEM.RETURN.CODE. Rich Richard Sammartino Systems Analyst School District of Philadelphia 440 N Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19130 Phone (215) 400-5086 Fax (215) 400-4411 - Original Message - From: Phil Walker p...@gnosys.co.nz To: U2 Users List u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 5:01:41 PM Subject: [U2] [UV] Uvsh exit status and @SYSTEM.RETURN.CODE Hi all, I am trying to detect the success of failure of a BASIC program when running from UNIX. I was going to use @SYSTEM.RETURN.CODE setting to do this, hoping that the exit status of uvsh would reflect the value set for @SYSTEM.RETURN.CODE but it appears this is not the case. Does anyone know if this works and I am just missing something silly? Possibly VOC entry process mode setting or something? e.g. uvsh MYBASICPROGRAM SUCCESS would return exit status of 0 uvsh MYBASICPROGRAM FAILURE would return exit status 1 uvsh MYBASICPROGRAM would return 9 SUBROUTINE MYBASICPROGRAM @SYSTEM.RETURN.CODE = 9 Get(Arg.) EXITSTATUS ELSE STOP BEGIN CASE CASE EXITSTATUS = 'SUCCESS' @SYSTEM.RETURN.CODE = 0 CASE EXITSTATUS = FAILURE' @SYSTEM.RETURN.CODE = 1 END CASE RETURN This is a contrived example, but shows what I am trying to do with @SYSTEM.RETURN.CODE. Cheers Phil. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Purging and Indexing
In Unidata, the index would be build for the 10 million records. The purge would run a little longer as the index has be updated with every record removal. The size of the index file does not shrink with the purge of the records. From my experience, I would purge the file and then build the index. Make sure the file is not opened by anyone during the indexing otherwise your indexes could be corrupted. Rich Richard Sammartino Systems Analyst School District of Philadelphia 440 N Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19130 Phone (215) 400-5086 Fax (215) 400-4411 - Original Message - From: Gordon Glorfield gglorfi...@vertisinc.com To: U2 Users List u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:07:44 AM Subject: [U2] Purging and Indexing Good Morning, Looking for opinions and experiences here. We are trying to do some system cleanups. We found that our PO file has over 10 million records dating back some 7 years. We've decided that 2 years of PO history is plenty to keep on file. Currently there are no indices on this file. Our question is would it be quicker to do a select and delete of the older records before building an index on invoice date or would it be quicker to build the index first to use in the select for the purge? This index has been identified as being needed for some reporting. My thinking is that while the select for the purge may go quicker, if the index is in place prior to the purge then the delete process not only has to delete the selected records it also has to update the index on the fly. TIA, Gordon Gordon J Glorfield | Software Application Developer | Vertis Communications 250 W. Pratt Street, Suite 1800 | Baltimore, MD, 21201 T 410-361-8664 | M 443-280-7093 gglorfi...@vertisinc.com | http://www.vertisinc.com Vertis Communications is a results-driven marketing communications company that delivers inventive advertising, direct marketing and interactive solutions to prominent brands across North America. Our deep industry knowledge and extensive range of offerings-including integrated data solutions, digital program management systems, creative services, world-class print and mail production, logistics, out-of-home and business process outsourcing-are used to deliver superior program performance that drives bottom line results for our clients. With 100 strategically positioned locations and more than 5,000 dedicated professionals, we deliver impeccable quality and fast turn-around to any market. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] How to Clear Empty VM marks in Field
One solution is MAXV = DCOUNT(FXI,@VM) FOR I = MAXV TO 1 STEP -1 IF FXI1,I = '' THEN DEL FXI1,I NEXT I This handles embedded nulls as well as leading and trailing nulls. This would also give you a value if there are associated fields that would need to be removed. Rich Richard Sammartino Systems Analyst School District of Philadelphia 440 N Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19130 Phone (215) 400-5086 Fax (215) 400-4411 - Original Message - From: Garry Smith gar...@charlesmcmurray.com To: U2 Users List u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 7:29:48 PM Subject: [U2] How to Clear Empty VM marks in Field FXI = 1ýý DCount(FXI,VM) returns 3 Is there function to clear the blank value marks so that FXI = 1 and then DCOUNT would return 1 TIA Garry L. Smith Dir Info Systems Charles McMurray Company V# 559-292-5782 F# 559-346-6169 ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
