Re: v5r2 to v5r4 upgrade issue with CPYTOIMPF data truncation

Ok, I got to take a look at the data, on further examination, the problem is
that CPYTOIMPF wants 81 characters as follows:

Field Size in
Name Type Length Dec InpF
WKORDR A 15 15
WKPODT P 8 0 10
WKSTYL A 9 9
WKSUNO A 10 10
WKORQT P 15 6 17
WKDUDT P 8 0 10
WKDWDT P 8 0 10
----
81

Didn't realize that the CPYTOIMPF reserved a space for the sign and the
decimal point even though the field had no decimals.

Which meant that the last two bytes, 80 - 81 were spaces from the WKDWDT
field.

At v5r2, a bug (feature) of CPYTOIMPF truncated trailing spaces of the last
field.

At v5r3, this was changed. Memo to users directs you to look at
Informational APAR II13784, which says:
"CPYTOIMPF no longer truncates trailing when STRDLM(*NONE) is used on the
CPYTOIMPF request. Please see APAR *SE17667* for more information. "

ARAR SE17667 goes into more detail.

The end results, at v5r2 a destination file of only 80 bytes worked without
problem. At v5r4 (or v5r3) the destination file needs to have room for the
full 81 bytes.

Charles

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Charles Wilt <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

All,

After a upgrade to v5r4 from v5r2, we're having an issue with CPYTOIMPF.
The process errors out with a data truncation error:
Message ID . . . . . . : C2M3003 Severity . . . . . . . : 20

Message type . . . . . : Escape

Date sent . . . . . . : 11/24/08 Time sent . . . . . . :
10:18:30

Message . . . . : Data was truncated on an input, output or update
operation.

Command being used:
CPYTOIMPF FROMFILE(QAORDEXPWK) TOFILE(QAORDEXPDL) +
MBROPT(*ADD) RCDDLM(*EOR) DTAFMT(*FIXED) +
STRDLM(*NONE) FLDDLM('')

It doesn't appear to be the know CCSID issue with CPYxxIMPF at v5r3+, as
both files (and all alpha fields) are CCSID 37

QAORDEXPWK has the following fields:
Field Size in
Name Type Length Dec InpF
WKORDR A 15 15
WKPODT P 8 0 9
WKSTYL A 9 9
WKSUNO A 10 10
WKORQT P 15 6 17
WKDUDT P 8 0 9
WKDWDT P 8 0 9
----
78

QAORDEXPDL has a single 80 character field.

I wouldn't expect it to truncate…

Increasing the size of the field from 80 to 100, gets rid of the error, but
no record has anything past 79.

Anybody seen anything like this?

Thanks!
Charles