Re: QMQRY questions

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

To expand a bit on Carel's reply -

QMQRY source is not the QMQRY itself - the latter is an object (that 
could have been) created from the source.

So those H and V lines are not interpreted by any runtime process. If 
interested, the H record has the QM version and some kind of date and 
time and other stuff. The first V record, 1001 type, is an "object 
comment" - the object text description, actually.  V 5001 is sort 
sequence. All this is in a manual called Query Management Programming - 
for masochists only, especially when working with QM forms!

If you already are running the *QMQRY object, the source has nothing to 
do with the output.

QQMQRYSRC is supposed to be at RCDLEN 91 - 92 looks like the default for 
the CRTSRCPF. 79 looks like a mistaken understanding that took 12 from 
91 to get 79, maybe thinking that RCDLEN did not include SRCSEQ and 
SRCDAT - it does!

Again, none of that has any effect on running an existing QMQRY object.

So to find out what is the problem, you need to see the SQL statement. 
You can use STRQM to see it, or you can  use RTVQMQRY, which Carel 
mentioned, to get the statement into a source member, then see what it is.

Once you have the statement, come on back with it and what it should do, 
then we can maybe help more.

Cheers
Vern

On 9/9/2014 10:55 AM, Carel Teijgeler wrote:
> Dan,
>
> The H and V lines are a result of the RTVQMQRY command and can be 
> deleted or changed into a comment.
>
> The official RECL should be 91, IIRC.
>
> Regards,
> Carel Teijgeler.
>
> On 9-9-2014 16:24, Dan Rasch wrote:
> > I have a QMQRY that is not producing the outputs I expect.
> >
> > I suspect the H and V lines at the top of other QMQRY source members 
> > may be part of the problem.
> >
> > One other member had these lines:
> >
> > H QM4 05 Q 01 E V W E R 01 03 14/09/09 08:44
> > V 1001 050 Dan - Temp for Transfer analysis
> > V 5001 004 *HEX
> >
> > Are they necessary at all?
> >
> > I also noticed some of the QQMQRYSRC files had a RECL of 92, and 
> > others 79.
> > Would that matter?
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > Dan Rasch