Re: PTF Cross Reference

On 06-Oct-2016 09:33 -0500, Rob Berendt wrote:

However, since PTF SI61076 was supposed to fix this issue with
ADDUSRSMTP, and it doesn't,
and the object was not replaced,
and the error message points to that object,
I'm leaning towards the PTF being defective.
[http://www-912.ibm.com/a_dir/as4ptf.nsf/ALLPTFS/SI61076]

[]

See QTMSADDUSR below:

Product ID/PTF ID . . . . . . . . . : 5770TC1 SI61076
Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : V7R3M0

Object Type Object Type
QTMSUTL72 *SRVPGM QTMSCHGUSR *PGM
QTMSDSPD *PGM QTMSDSPUSR *PGM
QTMSSTRC *SRVPGM QTMSRMVRLE *PGM
QTMSWRKEMM *PGM QTMSRMVUSR *PGM
QTMSSMTPC *PGM QTMSSTRIMP *PGM
QTMSSMTPD *PGM QTMSUPDLST *PGM
QTMSCHGPMT *PGM QTMSWRKUSR *PGM
QTMSCHSMTP *PGM
QTMSFWD *PGM
QTMSADDRLE *PGM
QTMSADDUSR *PGM
QTMSCHGRLE *PGM

I agree with your assessment; seems probable to be the case.

However my comment still stands, about how the PTF identifier on an object included on a PTF is not necessarily going to match the PTF that was applied. That is because the PTF process eliminates unnecessary work by not replacing unchanged objects.

I suspect in this case that the developer failed to actually include the changed object on the PTF; the old not-yet-corrected version of the object was included in the PTF. And that the source code probably includes the fix, but there was no recompiled QTMSADDUSR object actually included\saved in the PTF. That scenario would explain why the object did not get replaced when the PTF was applied.