MagarG
VIP Member
We went live with OW by copying PY to PD using OTI-01-0026.
I ran the step "Updating Object Librarian Records for PROD from CRP"
which uses the UBE R989861.
This report returned successfully and did 28855 records. This was back
in June, 2002.
We have recently applied a ESU and instead of Promoting it through we
applied it directly to all environments. Anyways, the ESU was already
in Update 5 so the objects were not merged to DV, PY (we haven't applied
XU5 to JD yet). The objects were however applied to PD. After looking
at the table, it appears the F9861 table on the Enterprise server did
not get updated properly. However, scanning through, some objects did.
For example:
SIOBNM..SIPATHCD..SIMODCMT......SIPID.......SIJOBN.....SIUPMJ........SIDM
R77427...PD7333.......XU5_PY7333....P98220....R98700....5/25/2002....5/25/2002
R77427...DV7333.......XU5_DV7333....P98220....R98700....5/12/2002....5/12/2002
R77427...PY7333.......XU5_PY7333.....P98220....R98700....5/25/2002....5/25/2002
R77430...SV7333.......[blank]................ADMIN......JDE..........9/18/2000....11/8/1999
R77430...PD7333.......[blank]................ADMIN......JDE.........9/18/2000.....11/8/1999
R77430...PY7333.......XU5_PY7333.....ADMIN.....R98700.....5/25/2002.....5/25/2002
R77430...JD7333........[blank]...............ADMIN......JDE..........9/18/2000......11/8/1999
R77430...DV7333.......XU5_DV7333.....ADMIN.....R98700.....5/12/2002......5/12/2002
If you look at object R77427 for path code PD7333 you notice it has the
PY comment field
indicating the UBE R989861 copy did this.
If you now look at object R77430, PD is blank and the dates are old
also. Why didn't these get updated?
One pattern, I noticed is, if there was not a JD7333 entry for the
object, the PD object got updated with the
PY information.
How can I correct this? Any ideas what is going on?
Thanks.
,gm
ENT: AS400 V4R5 OW Xe Update 5 Coexistence SP19 D1
DEP: NT 6a SQL 7 SP3
JAS: Win2000 (pending)
AS400 V4R5 Coexist CO-NT Xe SP19
I ran the step "Updating Object Librarian Records for PROD from CRP"
which uses the UBE R989861.
This report returned successfully and did 28855 records. This was back
in June, 2002.
We have recently applied a ESU and instead of Promoting it through we
applied it directly to all environments. Anyways, the ESU was already
in Update 5 so the objects were not merged to DV, PY (we haven't applied
XU5 to JD yet). The objects were however applied to PD. After looking
at the table, it appears the F9861 table on the Enterprise server did
not get updated properly. However, scanning through, some objects did.
For example:
SIOBNM..SIPATHCD..SIMODCMT......SIPID.......SIJOBN.....SIUPMJ........SIDM
R77427...PD7333.......XU5_PY7333....P98220....R98700....5/25/2002....5/25/2002
R77427...DV7333.......XU5_DV7333....P98220....R98700....5/12/2002....5/12/2002
R77427...PY7333.......XU5_PY7333.....P98220....R98700....5/25/2002....5/25/2002
R77430...SV7333.......[blank]................ADMIN......JDE..........9/18/2000....11/8/1999
R77430...PD7333.......[blank]................ADMIN......JDE.........9/18/2000.....11/8/1999
R77430...PY7333.......XU5_PY7333.....ADMIN.....R98700.....5/25/2002.....5/25/2002
R77430...JD7333........[blank]...............ADMIN......JDE..........9/18/2000......11/8/1999
R77430...DV7333.......XU5_DV7333.....ADMIN.....R98700.....5/12/2002......5/12/2002
If you look at object R77427 for path code PD7333 you notice it has the
PY comment field
indicating the UBE R989861 copy did this.
If you now look at object R77430, PD is blank and the dates are old
also. Why didn't these get updated?
One pattern, I noticed is, if there was not a JD7333 entry for the
object, the PD object got updated with the
PY information.
How can I correct this? Any ideas what is going on?
Thanks.
,gm
ENT: AS400 V4R5 OW Xe Update 5 Coexistence SP19 D1
DEP: NT 6a SQL 7 SP3
JAS: Win2000 (pending)
AS400 V4R5 Coexist CO-NT Xe SP19
