Rob - also in 8.3.4 Infor added a lot of what are looking for as in date stamping etc. - if you can tell me exactly what you are adding (field content) and to which files I can look it up in 8.3.4 for you.
-----Original Message-----
From: BPCS-L [mailto:bpcs-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 10:04 AM
To: BPCS ERP System
Subject: Re: [BPCS-L] Adding columns to existing Infor files.
I had to look up in the dictionary as to what you meant, since it wasn't inherently obvious to me. (pun intended).
It doesn't matter what you inherit, it matters what you are using.
Group Dekko (long ago known as Lyall Electric) was the 3rd customer BPCS ever had and we're the oldest still running it. Roger came on site and wrote one of the modules on our S/34.
We're currently running Version 8.3 Release 03
Oh, I get your point. We're running Version 8.3.3 and you said 8.3.4 is where their user defined columns were added to many of the base table. I am looking to add three timestamp columns, a 1 char, two 128 byte variable length character, and one 28 byte variable length character that are system maintained. Do you see that in the user defined fields in 8.3.4?
Rob Berendt
--
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com
From: Dan Sweeney <Dan.Sweeney@xxxxxxxxx>
To: BPCS ERP System <bpcs-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 10/06/2015 09:30 AM
Subject: Re: [BPCS-L] Adding columns to existing Infor files.
Sent by: "BPCS-L" <bpcs-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
What version of BPCS/LX did you inherent?
-----Original Message-----
From: BPCS-L [mailto:bpcs-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 9:19 AM
To: BPCS ERP System
Subject: Re: [BPCS-L] Adding columns to existing Infor files.
The problem with user defined fields is multifold. One, many of the
tables I am considering do not use them. Two, many of the columns I want
to add have timestamps and whatnot and I want the system to maintain them
and I do not want to rely upon RPG tricks to overlay a timestamp into some
character column, nor do I wish to always have to translate said
conversion every time I want to query by that column. Triggers and User
Defined Functions (and maybe even a view utilizing some of those UDF's)
would take out a lot of that pain.
But what it really boils down to is that I want to add some very specific
columns without disrupting the business by having Infor programs blow up.
Rob Berendt
--
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail
to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com
From: Dan Sweeney <Dan.Sweeney@xxxxxxxxx>
To: BPCS ERP System <bpcs-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 10/06/2015 09:00 AM
Subject: Re: [BPCS-L] Adding columns to existing Infor files.
Sent by: "BPCS-L" <bpcs-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Depending on the version of BPCS/LX you are implementing in ERPLX 8.3.4
Infor has added some user defined fields for a lot of the master files to
help rectify the use of extension files and doing data base changes to the
base physical files.
-----Original Message-----
From: BPCS-L [mailto:bpcs-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 8:55 AM
To: BPCS ERP System
Subject: Re: [BPCS-L] Adding columns to existing Infor files.
John,
What should I be comparing, and why? Is this an attempt to find out what
changed? I'm not trying to find out past tense. I am trying to decide on
the possible negative ramifications of adding additional columns to
existing tables.
At first I thought I dodged the bullet since Infor seemed to have used the
logicals for all traditional RPG I/O. Their logicals select the
individual columns from the base tables and avoid any *ALL concept. This
is a good thing. No programs would blow due to a record format level
check.
But then it was pointed out to me that Infor does occasionally use the
dreaded:
select * from mytable into :mytableDS in which mytableDS is an
externally defined data structure. At one time this would have only been
a 'soft' error. But many moons ago IBM came out with a ptf or new release
which made this a hard halt if the 'from' table was altered and now had
more columns at the end than were in the data structure. Oh, it's a
really simple fix. Simply recompile the program and it will use the new
external data structure. I'm not saying the mountain is insurmountable,
you just have to know whether the changes you want are worth the pain.
As far as any concerns about Infor screwing up the additional columns I'm
somewhat confident they wouldn't. For example if they do a traditional
RPG input, modify some columns and update the row the columns I an
interested in are outside of their control and shouldn't be altered by
that. But I would definitely test that out.
I have zero interest in a "needle in a haystack" solution.
Rob Berendt
--
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail
to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com
From: JRusling@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: BPCS ERP System <bpcs-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 10/06/2015 08:35 AM
Subject: Re: [BPCS-L] Adding columns to existing Infor files.
Sent by: "BPCS-L" <bpcs-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
fyi - from the help text
54=Compare file member
Type 54 to compare file members. You can only use this option
on data physical files (*FILE PF-DTA) or source physical files
(*FILE PF-SRC). If you try to use Compare file member on any
other type of object, you receive an error message.
John Rusling
Senior Developer/Analyst
Quadion LLC
Minnesota Rubber & Plastics
952.927.1419
<br />
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone
else is
unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,
is
prohibited and may be unlawful.
midrange.com
