I didn't expect them to match after the CHGPF.
There seems to be a lot of confusing documentation out there. One site that I looked at said it would change the field length if the record format IDs matched before the CHGPF. I was just point out the fact that they matched before the CHGPF and not after.
My goal at this point is to document and share everything that I find so the next person using CHGPF doesn't get mislead by things that may have been correct when they were written but are not now.
Also, the point of switching to CHGPF was so I didn't have to recreate the logicals because there are some weird members in them...some built over single members, some build over specific members (and the member name does not match the PF member it is built over), etc. and also some join logicals.
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Mark Waterbury
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 6:23 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Converting large amount of data
John,
A very nicely constructed test scenario. :-)
The record format level ID for LF2 no longer matches because the total record length of LF2 is now different than the record lengths for the PF or for LF1. The hashing algorithm that computes the level ID considers the record length, and the types, lengths, and decimal places of each component field in the record, from left to right. Note that it does not take into consideration the field names, or the field text descriptions, etc.
Record format sharing is also a rather complex subject that has never been well-documented or well explained, except perhaps in some internals documentation within the walls of IBM RTC (aka. RochLabs).
Mark
On Thursday, January 28, 2021, 5:57:27 PM EST, smith5646midrange@xxxxxxxxx <smith5646midrange@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It doesn't matter if the format names match in the PF and LFs.
I created the following DDS members
JRSTESTPF
R RTESTPF
FIELD1 10
FIELD2 10
FIELD3 10
K FIELD1
K FIELD2
JRSTESTLF1
R RTESTPF PFILE(JRSTESTPF) K FIELD2 K FIELD1
JRSTESTLF2
R RTESTPF PFILE(JRSTESTPF)
FIELD1 10
FIELD2 10
FIELD3 10 K FIELD3 K FIELD2
Note that JRSTESTLF2 has the fields included in the DDS.
The record format IDs on all three files match.
I changed FIELD1 from 10 to 20
JRSTESTPF R RTESTPF
FIELD1 20
FIELD2 10
FIELD3 10
K FIELD1
K FIELD2
And then do a CHGPF on JRSTESTPF
FIELD1 in JRSTESTPF is changed to 20
FIELD1 in JRSTESTLF1 is changed to 20
FIELD1 in JRSTESTLF2 is NOT changed. It remains 10 bytes.
Also, the record format ID on JRSTESTPF and JRSTESTLF1 match. JRSTESTLF2 no longer matches.
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related questions.
Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate link:
https://amazon.midrange.com
midrange.com
