SOC4 after processing 422 records using UNSTRING verb

akshaiya · New User Joined: 17 Sep 2005 Posts: 49

Hi,

Iam using a variable length file of 486 record length.Now iam trying to convert the variable format to fixed record length.
The input file has 7000 records.Input file containing '|' as a seperator for each field.Iam unsing the following code:

dick scherrer · Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:39 am

Hello,

Please post the definition of the data area(s) you are UNSTRINGing into. Please post the actual unstring code rather than typing an example. Also, please post the JCL for this step.

It appears that you know just where you are in the file at the time of the abend, so it will be helpful if you show the lengths of the record before the error, the record after the error and the record where the error occurs.

If you are reading the variable length file, how does "space" become a factor?

From what you've posted, my guess is that there is an over-run between the delimited input and the receiving variables. Please try adding a filler of PIC X(10000) as the last statement in your working-storage.

akshaiya · New User Joined: 17 Sep 2005 Posts: 49

Thanks, Dick.I added a filler of pic x(100) as the last stmt in my output file variable lists.It worked.

Can you please let me know by adding filler ...am I missing some data on any of output variable.Am not sure about overflow.Please make me clear in this.I know the maximum file length of variable length file.Hence I used the maximum length of 486 in the output file section.how can overflow happen?

Thanks Again!

akshaiya · New User Joined: 17 Sep 2005 Posts: 49

There are more than 70 variables in UNSTRING.

dick scherrer · Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:41 am

You're welcome.

To determine what is going on, put together something (a small program, a sort, or whatever utility you are comfortable with) to copy the records near the first "bad" record to another file - skip the first 419 and copy the next 5. When you have this file, open it in TSO/BROWSE and see what the records looks like. If there are packed or binary numbers, you will want to use HEX ON.

When you have identified the inconsistency and made whatever change is needed, you could use this small file for testing.

As long as the program needs the "protection" of the filler, you won't know what may be missing.

Two thoughts come to mind - a "long" record or one or more extra delimeter characters. You'll be able to tell if it is one of these or something else when you have looked at the small set of records.

I'll be back online later. Good luck and let us know how it goes.

akshaiya · New User Joined: 17 Sep 2005 Posts: 49

Thanks,Dick.

Can you please let me know whether there is any other method to convert VB to FB other than UNSTRINGing it and writing.As we need to declared all the variables as alphanumeric to use UNSTRING.

William Thompson · Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:58 pm

Is each field in each record the same size and location as all the equivalent fields in all the other records?

akshaiya · New User Joined: 17 Sep 2005 Posts: 49

It has the standard(same) layout for every record.It has the total fixed length upto 486.All declared under a group variable.It has different size for each field.some has integer and some has char.Not all the variables are of same size.

Hope I understood your query and replied accordingly.

William Thompson · Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:11 pm

OK, same layout for every record, but in each record the fields differ from each other, right?
All records are the same length and have the same number of fields, right?
All the fields are separated by one character, a "|", right?
Final output desired is to convert from variable to fixed, right?
Final output desired is for the fields to be in the same order and size that they are in the input record but without the character "|" between each field, right?
Awaiting your reply,

Bill

akshaiya · New User Joined: 17 Sep 2005 Posts: 49

same layout.it doesnt have record types..First record having 70 variables consiting of variable1 being numeric and variable 2 being char...like that..
All the fields arer seperated by '|'
All records have same length and have same number of fields.
to convert vb to fb
final output desired can have '|' or spaces in that place.

hope I made my query clear.

William Thompson · Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:54 pm

With COBOL, read the VB file, either examine converting the "|" to a space or through a short perform, squeeze out the "|" (will make record about 69 bytes) then just write FB file out.
This could be done with DFSORT (and Syncsort, I think) also.
Would that output be acceptable?

akshaiya · New User Joined: 17 Sep 2005 Posts: 49

I dont have advanced PTF version.
can you gimee sample code for converting VB to Fb other than using UNSTRING for the following input layout.

01 file-var.
05 WS-ID PIC X(5)
05 WS-PL-NUM PIC S9(7) COMP
05 WS-CST PIC S9(10)V9(3)
05 WS-QTY PIC S9(7)V9(3)

akshaiya · New User Joined: 17 Sep 2005 Posts: 49

for using ,UNSTRING I need to keep all variables as aphanumeric.
But the same 4 variables above will be used in Db2 table to extract data.So if alphanumeric is used in place of ZD,bind plan error occurs.

If possible,provide me a sample code.

William Thompson · Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:18 am

Now you are confusing me, what happened to the 70 variables? For sort, you don't need the advanced PTF version.
Is this the input or output?
01 file-var.
05 WS-ID PIC X(5)
05 WS-PL-NUM PIC S9(7) COMP
05 WS-CST PIC S9(10)V9(3)
05 WS-QTY PIC S9(7)V9(3)
If the input is not 70 some variables delimited by "|", could you give an example?
If the above is the output, is the comp field already a comp field?

dick scherrer · Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:51 am

Hi Akshaiya,

William Thompson · Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:56 am

Unstringing across that binary field could be dicey....

dick scherrer · Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:53 am

Yes, i believe it could. . . .

While the target seems to be moving, we can only offer suggestions on what has been posted. While 70 fields might be tedious, it would surely have helped to know there was embedded binary at the start.

I've still not heard what caused the initial "out of sync" abend. Maybe later . . . It will be much better to know why the filler was needed. It allowed the program to run, but it is questionable if it ran correctly. . .

When i've had to deal with embedded binary data in a "string", i've typically done the UNSTRING on the fields up to the place where the binary starts, dealt with the number of bytes of the binary field, then issued a new unstring beginning after the binary field. If there are multiple binary fields, this needs to be done multiple times,

'Tain't magic, just tedious

If the data is coming from a mainframe, i look at converting binary fields to another format when creating the string rather than dealing with it when i try to use it later. This is especially important for data that is to be moved cross-platform (unix/nt).

This

akshaiya · New User Joined: 17 Sep 2005 Posts: 49

Dick,I hadnt mentioned in my previous post that I didnt find anything wrong in that record.Its normal like the other record.
i.e it abends while processing/writing 422nd record.It means that it has processed till 421 records.I swapped the records 422 and 421.It again abends while processing 422md record(which is having swapped 421st record - processed before and failed now).
I checked well,but not sure why was it so?

The reason for asking process other than UNSTRING is that I need to declare all the variables as alphanumeric.By doing so,I need to convert alphanumeric to numeric(in case of numberic variable).

I did it by redefine clause.
for eg.

var1 x(7)
var2 9(7) - (this value is required)

var1 contains value '985'

when i moved to numeric,it shows 985000.After using redefine clause

var1 pic x(7)
var2 redefines var1 pic 9(7)

The result after displaying var1 and var2 are:
var 1 = 985
var2 = 985 0

value 0 comes as the last byte.0 is removed in between.Not sure why it got at the end.can anyone tell me how to move without the above problem?

Hope I made my query clear.

dick scherrer · Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:56 am

Hi Akshaiya,

Getting the data out of the variable format to unstrung fixed PIC X fields is only part of the work to be done. Now that you have broken the group into individual items, you need to work from item 1 to item n ensuring the rules for that item are followed. Most of the PIC X fields may be straight moves. The numeric fields will have to be dealt with in more detail.

I'd suggest that you create a few common routines (depending on how many kinds of numeric fields you need to support), move a PIC X that will be moved into a numeric field to a work field, then check the content to conformance to that field's rule and building the needed PIC 9 field.

This situation

akshaiya · New User Joined: 17 Sep 2005 Posts: 49

Thanks Dick.

COMPUTE PIC-9 = FUNCTION NUMVAL (PIC-X) .
The above 2 variables are declared accordingly.

akshaiya · New User Joined: 17 Sep 2005 Posts: 49

Thanks for the function,Dick
But Iam not able to use that intrinsic function.can you help me on this functiuon.

dick scherrer · Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:22 pm

Hi Akshaiya,

When you say you are not able to use that function, does this mean your compiler does not support it or does it mean that when you code it you recieve a syntax error (or a runtime abend)? Looking in the documentation of the version of the compiler you are using will verify if the function is available in your compiler.

I will try to help if i can.

How many different kinds of numeric fields will be unstrung (i.e. edited money fields may need different "rules" than quantity fields, etc)?

Did you try the process skipping the 50 records beginning at #400? If so, what was the result? If not, please try it and post the result. If the program fails regardless of what records are used, the problem is very likely due to a subscripting/indexing problem.