Re: Get PF for LF

I'm still not clear how you get what the based-on __members__ are from a list of fields. The original request was not to know the fields in the PF but which members of which PFs the LF is based on.

I think I need to see an example of the code you use to retrieve member names this way, because I don't understand how to do this. As I understand it, the original poster is starting with the name of an LF and wants to know which members of which files the LF is based on.

I've looked at both DSPFFD and the QUSLFLD (List fields) API - there is nothing there about based-on members that I can see.

But I can certainly have missed something, so please show us how to do this.

Regards
Vern

On 1/2/2024 11:52 PM, Javier Sanchez wrote:

The idea is to keep this in mind, and consider the possibility, so not to
be surprised. :)

El mar, 2 de ene de 2024, 5:35 p. m., VERNON HAMBERG Owner via MIDRANGE-L <
midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:

:) Maybe true, Javier. It just seems like the long way around to determine
which PF members the LF is based on by using fields, if possible at all -
and the original question was about getting a list of the based-on members,
right?


Cheers
Vern

On Tue, 2 Jan, 2024 at 3:59 PM, Javier Sanchez <
javiersanchezbarquero@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


To: midrange systems technical discussion

In general, this may work most of the time, because the common practice
when creating LF's is to provide only the PF's record name, so the LF
compiler will include all fields. I work with some LF's where the fields
may be renamed, and moreover, not all of them may be selected, and that is
a valid LF. So in these cases, you may not be successful in retrieving the
whole, original PF layout.

JS


El mar, 2 ene 2024 a las 14:51, VERNON HAMBERG Owner via MIDRANGE-L (<
midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>)
escribió:

Hi Troy


I don't see DSPFLD on a machine I have full authority on. I had
recommended DSPFD below - is that what you meant?


If not, I'm curious to know what DSPFLD is and where it comes from - TAA
Tools, perhaps?

I'm also curious - does the tool you speak of tell you which tables an LF
is based on? DSPFLD sounds like DSPFFD, I also googled for DSPFLD and

found

a 30-year-old QMQRY thing, as well as a toolset called Projex4i and some
other stuff - had never heard of Projex4i, anyone know it? Also something
suggested by Nick Litten based on the QADB* tables - I have to give the
same caveat - IBM locks those down pretty well. I just did a little test,
first on a machine where my USRCLS is *SECOFR - I can do anything, of
course. Then on our company system - DSPPFM QADBXREF gave me a not
authorized message. So did trying to take the SQL statement that

SYSTABLES

is - over QADBXREF and another QADB* table - and rightfully so.


Many in these lists have elevated authority - be careful about
recommending things you can just do - same challenge if you're a software
developer and test everything with your special profile, not what a
customer will be using.


Regards
Vern


On Tue, 2 Jan, 2024 at 11:27 AM, Troy Foster <tfoster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<mailto:tfoster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>

wrote:


To: midrange systems technical discussion

Dspfld on logical.

-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:

midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:

midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:

midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>> On Behalf Of VERNON HAMBERG Owner

via MIDRANGE-L
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2023 2:09 PM
To:midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:

midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>

Cc: VERNON HAMBERG Owner <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:

vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:

vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>>;

midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<mailto:
midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: Get PF for LF

Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links
or opening attachments. When in doubt, contact your IT Department



Hi Justin


The QADB* PFs and LFs are severely restricted - IBM do not want them
accidentally corrupted. If you are able to work with them, you would seem
to have some elevated level of authority to them. I think it is strongly
advised not to use them in programs that regular users will be running

The JSON in the recent SYSFILES can be used nicely by using the

JSON_TABLE

function, I would think. But if you are on pre-7.5 release, I recommend

the

DSPFD thing - it's been around forever, safe, reliable. And you can't

trust

that IBM won't put tighter reins on these "system" files.


The reason I know is related to a tool I once wrote that used the QADB*
files and failed when lower authority levels tried to run things.


Cheers
Vern


On Fri, 29 Dec, 2023 at 1:13 PM, Justin Taylor <jtaylor.0ab@xxxxxxxxx

<mailto:jtaylor.0ab@xxxxxxxxx>

<mailto:jtaylor.0ab@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jtaylor.0ab@xxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:


To: midrange-l

Both QSYS2.SYSFILES and QSYS.QADBLDEP give the answer, but SYSFILES
returns it as JSON. I prefer not to parse JSON if I don't have to.

Thanks guys!