88 level variable logic not working

sandeep kumar302 · New User Joined: 14 Mar 2012 Posts: 81 Location: India

Hi,
I am creating a new program where i am using the 88 level to define many values for valid type business.

The valid Type Business (TB) are - 12, 41, 47, 48, 49 and 50.
Since i don't want to test the entire program and i know that the program is working fine as expected but only the 88 level variable logic is not working, so i just took the logic of 88 level variable and tried to test it. The modified small program to test it is below-

Bill Woodger · Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:25 am

You cannot test a program by taking parts out and testing those parts in isolation.

You might not want to test the program, but you have to. You might think you know that it is working, but from the code you've shown the chance of it working is zero.

You have no clue of how an 88 works, do you? I thought it was just a naming problem in the title, but you do seem to believe that an 88 is some type of magical variable which holds several values in a space where only one can be held.

That's not how it works. Read the Enterprise COBOL Language Reference and Programming Guide and come back if you have problems in understanding. At the moment you have simply made no attempt at understanding it yourself.

sandeep kumar302 · New User Joined: 14 Mar 2012 Posts: 81 Location: India

Hi Bill,
Thanks for your reply.

The program before the addition of 88 level logic is working fine and that is already tested. The changed part only needs to be tested as told to me as requirement. We don't have the sufficient data to test the entire program.

since i am not setting the variable or not moving any value to it so its not working and its taking junk values.

Now it is working fine. modified code is-

mistah kurtz · Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:17 pm

Are you sure your program is working fine? Did you test it for all the values (12,41,47,48,49,50)?

Bill Woodger · Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:36 pm

mistah kurtz,

If a person doesn't feel like testing a program, they pick a single value and if that one works, they move on:

Marso · Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:42 pm

When you have this:

sandeep kumar302 · New User Joined: 14 Mar 2012 Posts: 81 Location: India

Hi Marso,
Yes, it is exactly doing

IF WS-CA-PERISH-TB = 12 OR 41 OR 47 OR 48 OR 49 OR 50
but i do not have to hard code it so i am following 88 level logic.

I have modified the JCL also where i am not passing 12 now.

The values are directly moved in the program.

Here is my output-

Bill Woodger · Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:47 pm

And you are MOVEing each value immediately before the code for that value. Do you feel that is testing? Try changing all your MOVEs, as they are now, to 49. All of them. Then show us the results. Happy?

sandeep kumar302 · New User Joined: 14 Mar 2012 Posts: 81 Location: India

Hi Bill,

Thanks for the suggestions.

May be this is not the optimized way of testing.

But in actual program, could you please help me to code in a better way using 88 level clause.

Since i am still in my learning curve, it will be great if you can tell me the best way to achieve this.

Bill Woodger · Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 6:25 pm

Make the name of the 88 meaningful.

Test the 88, and PERFORM a procedure which deals with those types of things.

Within that procedure, deal with each item as is necessary:

mistah kurtz · Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 6:28 pm

@ sandeep kumar302

You think your small independent program that you have shown us here is working fine, but it's not.

The way you are using 88 level conditionals is wrong. Try it like this:

Rohit Umarjikar · Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:43 pm

Where did you

Bill Woodger · Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 3:50 am

Rohit,

OP is getting data from a record. Why would they use SET?

Why do you think the program is now working? A literal is being coded immediately before each test. If the literal were coded before the group of tests, then any value which matched the 88 would be processed as though it were a "12".

Rohit Umarjikar · Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:25 pm

OMG, I don't Know how did I miss that to watch. thanks.
TS exactly needs to change to what you or Mr.Kurtz has suggested.

sandeep kumar302 · New User Joined: 14 Mar 2012 Posts: 81 Location: India

Hi Bill,
Thanks a lot for your suggestin and i do agree that the piece you gave is the optimized one and the time i started using this forum, i value your suggestion and eagerly waits for your comment on my questions.

Now, Let me again make my requirement clear so that i do not confuse you all-

Currently i have a list of programs which does the processing of items if the Type Business is equal to 12.

Now, the new requirement is like the program should do processing of items if the Type Business is equal to either 12,41,47,48,49 or 50.

If the Type Business is equal to any of these 6 values, the program will perform the same functionality.

Now, Please note that many times, the program is directly checking like below-

Rohit Umarjikar · Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 8:12 pm

I did not get

Bill Woodger · Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:25 pm

Rohit,

I think the plan has changed to now make the selection of what is to be processed "dynamic".

sandeep kumar302,

There is nothing essentially wrong with doing it how you describe, but there are some important things to consider: you have now extended the processing of the system beyond the code. That has benefits (reduced maintenance when things change) but you have to ensure that the benefits don't cloud the issues of security, auditability and suchlike.

How you implement it in the code is not as important as making sure you don't make it easy to mess the system up, and that you cover all legal issues. That file is effectively code, and has to be treated like code.

When your company/client produces their Accounts, your systems have to be audited (and auditable). You may also have other legal and compliance requirements. The file that you outline must comply with all of that.

I think you've probably still got quite a bit of work to do with people at your site, as I suspect this is something which has come out of Systems in isolation.

If this code is being used in multiple programs, consider a sub-program which returns an indication that "yes, it is one of these". The sub-program is then the only thing which needs to know about the file, so if the file changes, there's only one place you need to do it. It would not be a good idea to have multiple programs actually reading the file.

Don't use NEXT SENTENCE with END-IF/END-SEARCH/END-anything else. It is an accident waiting to happen. Use CONTINUE instead, if necessary, but what is wrong with IF .... PERFORM ...?

sandeep kumar302 · New User Joined: 14 Mar 2012 Posts: 81 Location: India

Hi Bill/Rohit,
Thanks for your suggestions. Yes, the code will be used in multiple programs. Yes the plan got changed now

Bill,
Regarding this, could you please tell me in detail(logic)

Bill Woodger · Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:43 am

Not touching old code is not the same as not applying the bad practice in old code to new code. If you are changing an IF, change the NEXT SENTENCE to CONTINUE.

The code you have outlined should work. It just means that everywhere you use it, you have to change the program to have the new file, load the table, and then use it. Then when you come to wanting to change something with it, you have 20 programs to change, instead of one sub-program. With one sub-program, you get the logic right in one place, and simply use the result in your program.

CALL the sub-program with an "open" and a "close". CALL the sub-program with a "do the stuff for me". Interrogate a value returned (say "Y").

The sub-program you can test in isolation, and then pretty much plug it into your however-many programs (which you then test).

Since you are getting the data from a file, I'd make the numeric value binary, I wouldn't call a one-byte field a "comment", but it may mean something specific to your application. I'd always test the FILE STATUS after a any IO, even in that PERFORM loop that you have. It is easier to pay more attention to the code in a sub-routine, and if you find you have performance problems with the look-up, you only have one place to fix it in.

I'd do a sub-program, as I know it'll save time in understanding, maintaining and all those types of things. Easier.

madprasy · New User Joined: 08 Apr 2008 Posts: 34 Location: Chennai

Rather...
You can store all the valid codes in ur lookup file and just check against WS-TYPE-BUSINESS .