| Author |
Message
|
| wmb_nik |
 Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:24 am Post subject: CWF Message Set |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Posts: 6
|
Hi,
Below are details of Message Set
Message Format : CWF1
Logical Properties
Local Element : short
Physical properties
CWF1
Local Element
Physical Representation
Physical Type : External Decimal
Length : 4
Length Unites : bytes
Justification : Left Justify
Padding Character : '0'
Numeric representation
Signed : Clicked
Sign EBCDIC Custom Overpunched : Not Clicked
Sign Orientation : Leading Overpunched
Representation of Null value
Encoding Null : Null Logical Value
Encoding Null Value : 0
Byte Alignment
Byte Alignment: 1 Byte
Leading Skip Count : 0
Trailing skip Count : 0
Above is the Description of a Field A in CWF
i am converting XML to CWF
XML Tag that is mapped to Field A is
<SQNUM>0001</SQNUM>
when i see the Output its is getting written as 1.
Can you please help me is that the correct behaviour is my Definition of field is wrong as i need output as 0001.
Regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:36 am Post subject: Re: CWF Message Set |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| wmb_nik wrote: |
| Can you please help me is that the correct behavior |
Probably.
| wmb_nik wrote: |
| is my Definition of field is wrong as i need output as 0001. |
What format is the output? File, MQ message, what? How are you viewing this output? If you're just looking in the debugger it will certainly show as 1 not 0001.
You also shouldn't be using CWF in any supported version. Use DFDL.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
The behavior is wrong..
You should be using XMLNSC and DFDL...
Otherwise, you need to set the format of the element to match your expected result.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wmb_nik |
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Posts: 6
|
Hi,
Thanks for reply
What format is the output? MQ message
When i Debug the field is shown as 0001
Regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wmb_nik |
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Posts: 6
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wmb_nik |
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Posts: 6
|
The message Set was created from cobol Copy Book.
Can you please let me know : - you need to set the format of the element to match your expected result |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| wmb_nik wrote: |
| Broker Version is 7.0 |
If you're outputting the CWF into an MQ message and it's not 4 bytes wide then I agree with my most worthy associate - the behavior is wrong.
If you were using a supported version of WMB you could raise a PMR and get a fix.
But you're not, so you can't.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
... Also, weren't "External Decimals" some kind of weird packed decimal field? Or was that something else?
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| ... Also, weren't "External Decimals" some kind of weird packed decimal field? Or was that something else? |
No. Hence the availability of overpunching in the definition.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| timber |
| Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Aug 2015
Posts: 1292
|
The changes of CWF getting the length of an external decimal wrong are pretty small. CWF was a *very* widely used format when the MRM parser was the only way to handle COBOL messages.
I suggest that you re-check carefully and see whether you have made a mistake in interpreting the output. If you are still convinced that there is a defect in CWF then you will need to provide:
- the XML input
- evidence of the contents of OutputRoot.MRM just before the output node. A Trace node is a great way to capture that information.
- the actual output (the *bytes* of the output)
in order to prove your case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
