Re: Issue with new IBM Access Client Solutions Emulator (still!)

On 13-Apr-2017 12:37 -0500, Bryan Dietz wrote:

On 13-Apr-2017 09:49 -0500, CRPence wrote:

[…]
values ( 'aaaaa' concat x'03' )
, ( 'BBBBB' concat x'03' )
, ( 'CCCCC' concat x'03' )

On my emulator for example, the report for the above query
requested in STRSQL does not give the error\failure, but the
displayed report appears as *only* the first row of data [i.e. the
'aaaaa'], but conspicuously devoid of either of the 'BBBBB' and
'CCCCC', and the End-Of-Data line [perhaps less conspicuously] is
also missing; surely that effect not an accurate portrayal of the
character data.?:

....+.
VALUES
aaaaa

same here but in the joblog:

System failure on device mydevice with feedback code 00002301.
Function check. CPF5411 unmonitored by QWSGET at statement *N,
instruction X'34A4'.
Dump output directed to spooled file 1, job 293412/myuserid/mydevice
created on system SYSNAME on 04/13/17 12:57:38.
Failure for device or member mydevice file QDQUWSRUN in library QSYS.
Dump output directed to spooled file 3, job 293412/myuserid/mydevice
created on system SYSNAME on 04/13/17 12:57:39.
Function check. CPF5257 unmonitored by QQURB at statement *N,
instruction X'050E'.

Confusing; the effect should be either, not both. The *FC in QQURB suggests the displayed report did not display -- that is the program [the Query/400 Report Writer to *DISPLAY] that presents the displayed report [for both the STRSQL and RUNQRY].

Or perhaps, I suppose [if the dump activity takes long enough], the implication is that the displayed report, showing just the first line of text, was visible; though only for an instant\momentarily, as a result of the first attempted write/Put to the display file [by QQURB]. And if so, then quite immediately afterward, the read/Get [i.e. in combination, an effective SNDRCVF request] then effects the close of the short-lived opened DSPF due to the bad fdbk code? On my tn5250j session, there are no errors, and the displayed report is exactly I as showed in my earlier above-quoted post -- paging the report does nothing, but +1 will show each additional row separately, which again, is contrary to expected output, and thus is best avoided [to avoid false inference from what is\not displayed], as I alluded in my reply.