"Unable to fetch ASVRHDR from TAM" for R09423 new version

\"Unable to fetch ASVRHDR from TAM\" for R09423 new version

First to mention I'm starting my question on this forum since it seems to involve client vs server. If it belongs on a different forum please advise.

We've never used the above noted report so I thought to add a version and run it locally first to see what it looked like. After clicking the last OK to submit I received the above message.

I've been told RDB is the package and TAM is used on clients. I searched and found 2 asvrhdr's, .ddb and .xdb, in my B7 env spec folder.

Naturally, my next step was to search jdelist for discussions about the report and/or error message. Found one R09423 entry which didn't seem related but gave me the idea to try it on the server.

It ran fine on the server. Tried to run locally again and voila...it worked.

I am more on the functional side and not too tech...I would appreciate it if someone might take a moment and explain why it had to run on the server first before working locally? I'd really rather try and understand and not just blindly accept sometimes local doesn't work first.

Many thanks and best regards,

tarkan

Re: \"Unable to fetch ASVRHDR from TAM\" for R09423 new version

At first glance, that is not the way it is supposed to work. When you create a new version, you should be able to submit it to run either locally, or on the server without regard to order.

I suppose it's a little too late now to look at the jde.log files?

Re: \"Unable to fetch ASVRHDR from TAM\" for R09423 new version

Actually, I saw your note last night, and took a look. There were four failed F983051 inserts around the same hour. Does that mean anything? Shame on me for not copying the log right then..I totally forgot this morning before starting my day and logged on...argh!

Probably entirely unrelated, but I went back to tweak the version data sel after making my forum post and the version wasn't listed. VLISTMODE set to 20 struck again. We thought that issue was resolved with a PTF years ago.

Anyhow, thanks for the reply. It seems this version is just not meant to be..........