As of December 1, 2020, Focal Point is retired and repurposed as a reference repository. We value the wealth of knowledge that's been shared here over the years. You'll continue to have access to this treasure trove of knowledge, for search purposes only.
Join the TIBCO Community TIBCO Community is a collaborative space for users to share knowledge and support one another in making the best use of TIBCO products and services. There are several TIBCO WebFOCUS resources in the community.
From the Home page, select Predict: WebFOCUS to view articles, questions, and trending articles.
Select Products from the top navigation bar, scroll, and then select the TIBCO WebFOCUS product page to view product overview, articles, and discussions.
Request access to the private WebFOCUS User Group (login required) to network with fellow members.
Former myibi community members should have received an email on 8/3/22 to activate their user accounts to join the community. Check your Spam folder for the email. Please get in touch with us at community@tibco.com for further assistance. Reference the community FAQ to learn more about the community.
The problem, essentially, appears to be that a COMP-3 field value, which contains a hex value of ‘50’ (which is the hex representation of an ‘&’), is being treated as an Amper Variable. This causes an error, because the Amper Variable is not resolved, and prevents the rest of the procedure being completed.
TABLE FILE H2RSKWBL PRINT D_CLAUSES AS CLAUSES BY D_RISK_KEY AS COY_RISK_KEY WHERE H2RSKWBL.RISK_NO EQ ZRISKKE1.RISK_NO AND H2RSKWBL.DATE_EFFECTIVE EQ ZRISKKE1.DATE_EFFECTIVE WHERE D_CLAUSES NE ' ' ON TABLE HOLD AS H2RSKBLX END NUMBER OF RECORDS IN TABLE= 3 LINES= 3 HOLDING... ERROR AT OR NEAR LINE 2 IN PROCEDURE EXZURRSAFOCEXEC (FOC295) A VALUE IS MISSING FOR: BUILDERS
The following shows the hex value of the data and it can be seen, clearly, where the “&..BUILDERS” variable is coming from.
The rejected Amper Variable actually spans two fields, neither of which are referenced in the query.
NSW...............H.....&..BUILDERS OPEN COVER DEE000000000021000C00000500CECDCCDE4DDCD4CDECD 52600000000007000080000200F2493459206755036559
A section of the MFD details for the data in question follows, beginning with ‘RSKW_RISK_STATE_BL’ (‘NSW’ in the details above), and ending with the involved fields, ‘RSKW_RATE_BL’ (8 bytes immediately prior to 'BUILDERS', above) and ‘RSKW_RISK_DET_BL_01’ (starting with ‘BUILDERS’, above).
Being a test environment, I was able to delete the offending record and rerun the extract, only for it to fall over at the next problem ‘variable’.
This file has been processed four times, in succession, printing different fields, before it fails in this, the fifth execution.
I have set this up in a stand-alone test, and it completes successfully.
This is my first time on this forum, for many years, and I apologize for not being able to explain my problem better. I would have liked to include a few images, but wasn't able to determine how to do that.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.This message has been edited. Last edited by: FP Mod Chuck,
WebFOCUS 7.7.05 IBM MVS 7.7.03 / ZOS 10.1 Text, Excel, PDF
Posts: 2 | Location: Sydney, Australia | Registered: May 02, 2017
Hi Waz. Everything is going well, thank you, as I hope it is with yourself. Thanks to both of you for responding to my request. I have found out what the cause of dilemma was, and it has nothing to do with the direction I had taken. It was the result of sloppy coding (not mine) and naming conventions, which resulted in a "-INCLUDE" of a HOLD file, literally reading each record as a line of code. All good now. Jimmy
WebFOCUS 7.7.05 IBM MVS 7.7.03 / ZOS 10.1 Text, Excel, PDF
Posts: 2 | Location: Sydney, Australia | Registered: May 02, 2017