Re: Auto submission of AFI Extract - 3/INW

Hi Lori,

I have been in dialogue with Geac Support over this issue and have received
OFFICIAL word from Geac that the problem lies in the fact that you must run
the AFI extracts in a single threaded jobq...  They will be releasing a
M.O.P. or Alert soon pursuant to my call log...

Believe me I had to fight to get them to acknowledge even that much...  I
gave them all the evidence they needed...  I told them that the processing
program FI551 uses a logical FIDSCPST which does not include the CONO45
field. FIGLCPST does include it but FI551 does not use that logical.
Therefore all companies transactions are processed in arrival order (from a
work file it turns out), thus they are commingled on the reports and in the
inquiry screen as well...

Our case # 595642 - User names and company numbers are commingled for
report FI552PT2 & inquiry FI650.
Issue was reported before by call log 75267...  Review Studley logs
INV31587 and FIV30338.

The solution I discovered was to change the standard task - APPL(PD)
RLSL(03) TASK(4615)
To run all iterations of this task from the same single-threaded jobq...
Believe it or not this solved the problem...  It appears that the records
are processed into a work file that that logical is built over, and if you
were running your AFI extracts simultaneously over multiple jobq's so that
the AFI extracts were running at the same time, that was what allowed the
commingling to occur...

Ever since I applied a TASK override to a specific JOBQ we have eliminated
the COMMINGLING of different plants data...!!!

PS - How did your upgrade go...  Do you have any experiences moving to
3.5.2B SP3 that you would like to share...?

Thanks.





"May, Lori" <LMay@corp.saturnee.com> on 10/06/2000 07:38:18 AM

Please respond to JBAUSERS-L@midrange.com
                                                              
                                                              
                                                              
  To:          "'JBAUSERS-L@midrange.com'"                    
               <JBAUSERS-L@midrange.com>                      
                                                              
  cc:          (bcc: Jeff Klipa/Harvard)                      
                                                              
                                                              
                                                              
  Subject      Auto submission of AFI Extract - 3/INW         
  :                                                           
                                                              






We have 20 separate locations, each running the AFI Extract (3/INW)
routinely throughout the week.   There is an inherent bug in JBA, which
blends the information from more than one location onto the same extract
report, if they are run at the same time.  In an attempt to control this, I
would like this job to automatically run every evening for each location.
I
created a separate RUNAMTASK in Machine Manager, for each of our plants,
hard coding the appropriate Company Number and User...  The system
indicates
the job ran successfully, when in fact, we don't get anything.
I suspect there may be additional parameters required in the MM
statement....  Has anyone successfully accomplished this, for multiple
locations?   I must also insure the plants receive their own reports at the
completion of the run.
Thank you,
  Lori Terese May
Manager of Business Operating Systems
Saturn Electronics & Engineering
248-844-1526
e-mail:  lmay@corp.saturnee.com

We have 20 separate locations, each running the AFI Extract (3/INW) routinely throughout the week.   There is an inherent bug in JBA, which blends the information from more than one location onto the same extract report, if they are run at the same time.  In an attempt to control this, I would like this job to automatically run every evening for each location.  I created a separate RUNAMTASK in Machine Manager, for each of our plants, hard coding the appropriate Company Number and User...  The system indicates the job ran successfully, when in fact, we don't get anything.

I suspect there may be additional parameters required in the MM statement....  Has anyone successfully accomplished this, for multiple locations?   I must also insure the plants receive their own reports at the completion of the run.

Thank you,

  Lori Terese May
Manager of Business Operating Systems
Saturn Electronics & Engineering
248-844-1526
e-mail:  lmay@corp.saturnee.com