Re: Considerations for changing QPWDLVL from 0 or 1 to 2

On 27-Apr-2016 13:45 -0500, Rob Berendt wrote:

On 27-Apr-2016 12:28 -0500, Rob Berendt wrote:

I tried it with, and without, the 2 byte hidden field after
dropping the password from 10 characters down to 8.
A 01 07 17'Password ...'
A 01 PASSWRD 8 I 07 53
A DSPATR(ND)
A* DUMMY 2 H

The buffer was off by 2 characters either way.

<<SNIP>>

As shown, the field DUMMY is commented. Seems the <snipped> problem
for the two bytes gone missing would be expected, if the DSPF was
compiled that way.?

When I said
<snip>
I tried it with, and without, the 2 byte hidden field
</snip>
please interpret that as with and without the comment.

Understood. Seems suspect however, that the /without the comment/ scenario would give the same\unchanged result [i.e. "buffer was off by 2 characters"] as the /with the comment/ scenario.

Using the Test Display File of the STRSDA shows the buffer of the DSPF created with the DUMMY field being present along with the shortened PASSWRD field, to be matching\consistent with that of the DSPF created from the original DDS.