Skip to Main Content
Due to the recent acquisition by IBM, the Adabas & Natural Ideas Portal does not contain ideas from products ApplinX and EntireX any longer. Please refer to the IBM Ideas Portal for these products from now on (IBMid required). Existing content will be migrated during the next few weeks.
Status Under Review
Workspace Adabas for z/OS
Created by Zaffer Khan
Created on Apr 13, 2022

REVIEWB customization to run against RAW LOGGING outputs

REVIEWB customization to run against RAW LOGGING outputs

REVIEWB Batch reports run on outputs generated in CLOG format.

When we started ADABAS REVIEW v461 evaluation (in order to migrate from CA APAS), we had a specific requirement for Software AG regarding the REVIEW Log outputs.
They needed to be in Character-format, and NOT CLOG format.
Hence we were supplied with special purpose zaps in REV46 by Software AG; and were asked to migrate to RAW Data under REV47. Ever since, our REVIEW Logs have been in Character-format.

And, the REVIEWB Batch does not run appropriately against all our logs (Please see attached JOBLOG output for additional information).


Hence, it will be really beneficial if Software AG provides us with REVIEWB customization for RAW LOGGING outputs.


Kindly review the below summary points of the Incident for more clarity on our request:

••• Summary of Incident# SI-464724: •••

"Regarding REVIEWB, if you want that REVIEWB can accept as input RAW data information, I recommend you creating an Enhancement proposal asking for it to R&D. Please let me know if you want to do it and I will send you the steps you should follow to do it."

"As you know, REVIEWB can not work with data formatted as input, so, if you consider that this new functionality should be added to the product, a enhancement proposal should be created. To do it, please, go to ADABAS & Natural Ideas portal (https://adabasnatural.ideas.aha.io/) and create a new idea.

Unfortunately I am not able to tell you how much time it will last, in case R&D decides to incorporate this new feature to the product."

"Thanks for the remote session and for all the details given.

These are the conclusions we met:

  • REVIEWB can only uses as input (DDNAME RVUSEQ) information with CLOG format. The only way to exploit the information generated by Review reports with REVIEWB is generating CLOG format, which can be done using Detailed Reports writing Detailed Logging.

  • Customer is generating RAW information from Detailed Reports. The format of this data is readable and fields are delimited by spaces. This format is generated in order to maintain the same format of the information that was generated with APAS, which is also processed by a customer's proprietary software.

  • Due REV461 did not have the option to generate RAW data, R&D developed a special zap to get this information from detailed logging. When REV47x was released, RAW data generation was available and customer started to use this feature to get the information.

  • Due to legal/operational restrictions, the customer must store the information generated by Review for a period of 3 years.

  • It is quite complex to customer to change from generating RAW data to generate Detailed Logging. In any case, he will open an internal discussion to analyze this option."

Use Case REVIEWB Batch Reporting against RAW LOGGING REVIEW outputs
  • Zaffer Khan
    Reply
    |
    Nov 5, 2024

    Hi Juergen,

    I am following up to know when would this enhancement be considered for developement.

    Regards,
    Zaffer

  • Admin
    Juergen Lind
    Reply
    |
    Apr 21, 2022

    Excellent, Zaffer!
    Thanks for the feedback!
    Best, Jürgen

  • Zaffer Khan
    Reply
    |
    Apr 17, 2022

    Hello Jürgen,
    (wa alaykum as salaam)

    This is to confirm that we are able to see our reported Idea now.

    Thanks a lot for the timely support.

    Best Regards,

    Zaffer


  • Admin
    Juergen Lind
    Reply
    |
    Apr 14, 2022

    Hello, es-salem-aleikum Zaffa!

    You reported that you can't see your freshly created idea anymore.
    It had been classified as SPAM for whatever reason.
    Maybe because of the word attachment.

    I unclassified it now.
    Pls. confirm that you can see it again.

    For security reasons PDF attachments are preferred over Word / Excel.

    Thank you!

    Cheers,

    Jürgen