Re: Issue with QPZCRTFX API

On 08/06/2010, at 3:21 AM, Peter Clifford wrote:

I have a problem with the QPZCRTFX Create PTF API.

I am now trying to use it to create PTFs to distribute changes to
stream files (e.g. java) as well as QSYS.LIB objects. I normally try
to distribute stream files and objects owned by QDFTOWN to avoid
issues with ownership when they are restored.The problem I have is
that the stream files that are saved with the PTF by the API always
seem to be owned by the user that runs the QPZCRTFX API,
irrespective of the owner of the original files.

I think that's a side-effect of the way QPZCRTFX processes things. As
I recall it creates duplicates of the files and then saves those thus
the duplicated objects are owned by the job--seems a design flaw to me
but can be worked around.

When you then load the PTF on the target system, if the owning user
profile does not exist, a series of CPI371E "Owner changed for
object" messages are issued, followed by a final CPF383E message "n
objects restored. 0 objects not restored." This is sent as an escape
message although all objects were restored. The LODPTF fails.

Since a job cannot run as QDTFOWN, I seem to have no way of
distributing these stream files owned by QDFTOWN if I include them
in a PTF.

Firstly, why do you think that? Just because CRT/CHGJOBD or SBMJOB
disallow that user profile (among many) is no reason to presume that a
job cannot be run under those profiles. Create a job description
object specifically for the purpose of creating your product things,
use SST to patch the name of the user profile (really easy to find),
and submit the PTF creation to run using that job description and
profile.

Secondly, none of your product objects should be owned by QDFTOWN.
They should all be owned by a profile that is shipped with (or created
by) your product. If you do this then you won't need to mess with a
patched *JOBD. You could supply an exit program to create the missing
owner profile and change all existing product objects to the new
owner. Note that this should be a separate PTF rather than part of
another fix and can then be a pre-requisite of all later PTFs.

In theory I could distribute them some other way (e.g. saved in a
save file, restored by a PTF exit program), but that's a bit late
now: having created a PTF using the directory list option on the
API, any PTF that supersedes that PTF will now include the stream
files that are owned incorrectly and will fail when loaded.

It seems that the only way out of this is to create a new PTF with
the stream files owned by a user profile that can run a job and
which is also guaranteed to exist on the target system, such as
QSECOFR (or maybe QPGMR?).

No, the proper way is to use a product owner profile.

This strikes me as all pretty unsatisfactory. What's the best way to
raise this with IBM as an issue nowadays? I've had no success
finding an option to do this on the IBM website so far. How can you
submit an APAR now?

In the same way as always--phone support and whinge. That will create
a PMR which if accepted will become an APAR which if fixed will result
in a PTF (if I recall the sequence correctly). There is probably an on-
line PMR entry panel. Ask Rob Berendt for the location of that :)

Regards,
Simon Coulter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
FlyByNight Software OS/400, i5/OS Technical Specialists

http://www.flybynight.com.au/
Phone: +61 2 6657 8251 Mobile: +61 0411 091 400 /"\
Fax: +61 2 6657 8251 \ /
X
ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail / \
--------------------------------------------------------------------



--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.