On 28-Jul-2014 12:00 -0500, Jeff Young wrote:

When I attempt to use a key mapped to the "TEST REQUEST" function,
the message received is:
Message ID . . . . . . : CPF5204 <<SNIP>> Function key not allowed.
Cause . . . . . : The function key that was used is not correct at
this time or was not defined. Recovery . . . : The correct function
keys are defined in the display device file.

The spooled output from a joblog or the F6=Print [from F1=Help] will include "the from\to programs and instructions" and along with the information about "from what display" [and record format], that would provide effectively what might be described as "the full context of the error." No matter, the message identifier and the recovery imply that the Test Request feature is somehow being diagnosed as a CA## Command Key [Function key]; flying in the face of my implication otherwise.

Though... I wonder if the error is a generic response, and that the underlying error [a previous error, possibly visible in the joblog, or possibly in a trace] is the following msg MCH6801; that the TstRqs feature invoked the QARDRIVE program, but the request fails, and the code that processes the keyboard request just /swallows/ every unknown\unhandled error, and sends the CPF5204 in spite of that message being an inaccurate implication for the condition.?

Attempting to call the CALL QARDRIVE, I receive the following:
Message ID . . . . . . : MCH6801 <<SNIP>> Object domain or storage
protection error for offset in object QARDRIVE. <<SNIP>> violation
type is 1. The violation type indicates the type of error: 1-Object
domain violation.

The program needs to be called from a program with System State [a simple OPM CLP with CALL or MI program with CALLX could be patched], or the system value QSECURITY must be low enough to enable calling system-domain programs without operating with system-state access; used to be that SecLvl-30 allowed that, but I am unsure if that held, or if an even lower Security Level must be set -- but changing that is generally even less an option than patching a program, for most people due to being on systems where such activity necessarily would be disallowed.


Anyhow, that is all probably moot anyhow, as likely the OP and your interest lies with the Display Attribute Bytes? As discussed in my prior reply to Peter.

P.S. The client that was used to post the quoted message, seems possibly to have an incorrect /time/ established; probably best to configure the system to use an internet Time Server using Network Time Protocol (NTP).

Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page