Passing SYSUID and JOB ID as parameter to COBOL program through JCL - cobol

I need to pass the SYSUID and JOBID to the cobol program for logging purpose, how is this possible?,
can the same be passed as an input for a query in a JCL.
Thanks in advance.

SYSUID is simple, you just add it to the PARM parameter of your EXEC statement.
//ASTEP EXEC PGM=A#PGM,PARM='&SYSUID'
JOBID isn't available as a parameter. You will have to write COBOL code to chain through z/OS control blocks (see the Data Areas books at that link) if you need it. This can be done, but I don't recommend it.
If you actually want to get the job number, you write code to go to the PSA control block, which is at relative memory location 0. From there you get a pointer to the current TCB which is in the PSATOLD field of the PSA, from the TCB you get the TCBJSCBB field which is a pointer to the JSCB, from the TCBJSCBB fielf in the JSCB you get a pointer to the SSIB which contains the SSIBJBID field which is the job number. All of these control blocks, PSA, TCB, JSCB, and SSIB are documented (for z/OS 2.4) at the link above. And I reiterate that I don't recommend doing this.
There's a tutorial on chaining through z/OS control blocks in two parts from Longpela.

I agree with #cschneid that you don't want to do all of the pointer chaining just to get the job number. But of course we did do it while creating a "banner page printing" program. We based ours off the code at http://gsf-soft.com/Freeware/COB2JOB.shtml.

If you are comfortable with using SET ADDRESS OF items in the LINKAGE SECTION, REDEFINE--ing POINTER and COMP-5 items, along with creating 01 level structurs from assembler DSECTs, then by all means do it. As a lightweight COBOL subroutine, it's not that much more overhead than an assembler routine (but assembler is better). If you are comfortable with the REXX STORAGE function, you can look at Dave Alcock's IPLINFO program.
However, if the COBOL language constructs I mentioned are unknown to you, then write an assembler subroutine, or ask someone to write it.

Related

Is there a way to substitute a small piece of code (e.g. a statement) with a more friendly alias in Delphi 10.4?

I'm working with Delphi 10.4.
At some places of my code I have to write long identifiers on long statements (e.g. ProductsForSale.fieldByName('quantity').asInteger * ..... / .... etc.). Is there a way to assign a friendly alias (e.g. TheCost) to this piece of code to substitute it everywhere in the application?
I don't want to use a variable or a function to do this. Only text substitution.
No, Delphi (and Pascal) knows
neither aliases (using a different name for a type/variable/function still needs you to define it anew),
nor macros (executing code in the compiler's context is very limited, mostly definings and conditions).
Even if, chances are you'd have to define it bound to a given context/scope: i.e. your favorite alias TooMuchToType might access three variables named one, two and three, but as per scope those variable's types can vary drastically. Its usage would be prone to obfuscated code and a lot of hassle the compiler has to go thru when trying to give you an error message he wants you to understand.
Why not doing exactly that at the end, but in the opposite way? First using a placeholder and when you're done you replace all of them with the actual code. Otherwise this is bascially what functions are there for, if you want it or not.

COBOL - Microfocus - Generic I/O

I am responsible for converting an old UNIX based COBOL batch application that was developed by a consultant back in the 1990s to a Windows environment but still in COBOL using Microfocus (Eclipse, etc).
This is a pretty straight-forward task except for one little glitch.
The old application never did any explicit file handling within the COBOL. That is there are no FDs, OPENs, READs, WRITEs or CLOSE commands in the COBOL programs. Instead they wrote a C program that would do one of those different functions based on parameters passed to it (including, but not limited to file name, rec length, and the function desired.)
I would like to rewrite that subroutine in COBOL, which would require very little modifications to the COBOL main programs being converted. That is, it would still call that subroutine, but it would now be in COBOL instead of C.
But the challenge is how to write that subroutine so that it is able to act on most any file. I would think I have to go the route of variable length records because they could literally be any length up to to-be-determined maximum size, but seems like it would be vulnerable to error (as it tries to open different types of files).
Does anybody have any experience on this or ideas on a task like this? If not,l I may have to go the blunt force route of replacing each call statement to that subroutine with the specific COBOL command (Open, Read, etc) that needs to be performed and obviously FD and SELECT for every file would need to be added to the main program.
Thanks in advance.
You might be able to
CALL "subprogram" USING fd-name
where fd-name is
FD fd-name.
...
So, yes? maybe?, you might be able to pull off a subprogram that can take generic COBOL files. But, then you get into matching record layouts and other fun things, so, be wary. This might not work COBOL to COBOL, but it does work COBOL to C and back, as you end up passing a reference to the file control block.
You'll likely be better off looking into stock system libraries. Things like CBL_OPEN_FILE and CBL_READ_FILE if they are available. This will give you a much closer match to streaming IO that will be assumed in the current C subprogram.
Or, as Bill is suggesting in the comments, try and figure out why C was used and if you don't want the foreign functions, just dig in and write new COBOL procedures, as that will likely read better in the end.

CICS Program Stack in COBOL

Is there a way of identify the program name in the call stack?
i.e., I've got a PGM X that links to a PGM B and this one links to a PGM C, and then, in C, I want to know which program originates the call (PGM X)?
If you're in CICS, you can do EXEC CICS ASSIGN and get the name of the current program with the PROGRAM option, and the program that linked to it with INVOKINGPROG. That will give you Program C and Program B in this case.
To get the original highest level program is more difficult. You can inquire on the current transaction (EIBTRNID) to get what program that runs, but if you've been routed somewhere then that won't be Program X but DFHMIRS for example.
You can do this, but it will take a little assembler. Essentially, you need to chase up the save areas and execute a CSVQUERY on the return address, this will give you the name of the module that owns that save area.
There are a few quirks, you need to watch out for Cobol runtime modules (prefixed with IGZ) and/or Language Environment modules (prefixed with CEE). When you do a Cobol Call, it invokes a runtime module that then calls the program you called.
Also, this will not identify programs that did a E. C. LINK or E. C. XCTL, only Cobol Call invocations that use OS save area conventions.
Example:
CSVQUERY SEARCH=JPALPA,INADDR=<R14_from_savearea>,OUTEPNM=<module_name_output>,MF=(E,PLIST)
Do that repeatedly for every return address on the save area chain and you will know all the callers.
There is no supported way to do that. Some people try chasing save areas and walking through the executable code to determine its name, but I suspect that all ends in tears.
One problem is that you have no guarantee of how LINK or XCTL have been implemented. In the case of dynamic calls you might be able to follow the save area chain, but then you need to figure out how to identify the module. Not something you're likely to be able to do in just COBOL.

Dynamic FORMS for printing AFP

I am trying to print AFP to sysout but the FORMS parameter is not known (and cannot be known) by the JCL. My current solution is to create dynamic JCL and spin it to INTRDR, but this is a weak solution because the job will not be under the control of our scheduler... and thus, an abend or other issue will go unnoticed by night-time operators.
I started concocting a way to print the AFP via a COBOL program. I use BPXWDYN to create the SYSOUT DD dynamically, which allows me to set the FORMS parameter however I want. But the next step is dumping the AFP to that DD.
I thought I could call IEBGENER dynamically from my COBOL program, but that pulls a S0C4.
I can move the AFP records from one DD to the other in the COBOL program, but that limits me to one LRECL... and I have many different LRECL definitions for AFP throughout my system, and COBOL MUST know the LRECL at compile time.
Any thoughts? Is it possible to call IEBGENER dynamically and not get the S0C4? Any other ideas I haven't thought of?
Thanks in advance...
Have you thought of writing a small assembler program? You can specify the LRECL in your BPXWDYN call, and the DCB does not need to specify an LRECL; it will get it from the DCB parameters at OPEN time. A program to simulate IEBGENER is quite trivial.
Alternatively, look at calling SORT with a FIELDS=COPY parameter. SORT doesn't need the LRECL either. Or write a REXX script.
There are many ways of doing this; you just need to look outside the COBOL box.
Your question is not extremely clear but I'm wondering if you should consider using the ACIF utility program called APKACIF instead of IEBGENR. The utility will merge your data and resolve the AFP FORMDEF, PAGEDEF objects to a dataset or print stream.

Determine Cobol coding style

I'm developing an application that parses Cobol programs. In these programs some respect the traditional coding style (programm text from column 8 to 72), and some are newer and don't follow this style.
In my application I need to determine the coding style in order to know if I should parse content after column 72.
I've been able to determine if the program start at column 1 or 8, but prog that start at column 1 can also follow the rule of comments after column 72.
So I'm trying to find rules that will allow me to determine if texts after column 72 are comments or valid code.
I've find some but it's hard to tell if it will work everytime :
dot after column 72, determine the end of sentence but I fear that dot can be in comments too
find the close character of a statement after column 72 : " ' ) }
look for char at columns 71 - 72 - 73, if there is not space then find the whole word, and check if it's a key word or a var. Problem, it can be a var from a COPY or a replacement etc...
I'd like to know what do you think of these rules and if you have any ideas to help me determine the coding style of a Cobol program.
I don't need an API or something just solid rules that I will be able to rely on.
I think you need to know the COBOL compiler for each program. Its documentation should tell you what conventions/configurations/switches it uses to decide if the source code ends at column 72 or not.
So.... which compiler(s)?
And if you think the column 72 issue is a pain, wait till you get around to actually parsing the COBOL itself. If you are not well prepared to handle the lexical issues of the language, you are probably very badly prepared to handle the syntactic ones.
There is no absolutely reliable way to determine if a COBOL program
is in fixed or free format based only on the source code. Heck it is sometimes difficult to identify
the programming language based only on source code. Check out
this classic polyglot - it is valid under 8 different language compilers. That
said, you could try a few heuristics that might yield
the correct answer more often than not.
Compiler directives imbedded in source code
Watch for certain compiler directives that determine code format.
Unfortunately, every compiler vendor uses their own flavour of directive.
For example, Microfocus COBOL uses the
SOURCEFORMAT directive. This directive will appear near the top of the program so a short pre-scan
could be used to find it. On the other hand, OpenCobol uses >>SOURCE FORMAT IS FREE and
>>SOURCE FORMAT IS FIXED to toggle between free and fixed format, different parts of the same program
could be formatted differently!
The bottom line here is that you will have to support the conventions of multiple COBOL compilers.
Compiler switches
Source code format can be also be specified using a compiler switch. In this case, there are no concrete
clues to go on. However, you can be reasonably sure that the entire source program will be either
fixed or free. All you can do here is guess. Unless the programmer is out to "mess with
your head" (and some will), a program in free format will have the keywords IDENTIFICATION DIVISION or ID DIVISION, starting before column 8.
Every COBOL program will begin with these keywords so you can use them as the anchor point for determining code format in the
absence of imbedded compiler directives.
Warning - this is far from fool proof, but might be a good start.
There won't be an algorithm to do this with 100% certainty, because if comments can be anything, they can also be compilable COBOL code. So you could theoretically write a program that means one thing if the comments are ignored, and something else entirely if the comments are treated as part of the COBOL.
But that's extremely unlikely. What's most likely to happen is that if you try to compile the code under the wrong convention, it will simply fail. So the only accurate way to do this is to try compiling/parsing the program one way, and if you come to a line that can't make sense, switch to the other style. You could also support passing an argument to the compiler when the style is already known.
You can try using heuristics like what you've described, but that will never be totally accurate. The most they can give you is a probability that the code is one or the other style, which will increase as they examine more and more lines of code. They could be useful for helping you guess the style before you start compiling, or for figuring out when the problem is really just a typo in the code.
EDIT:
Regarding ideas for heuristics, it's hard to say. If there were a standard comment sigil like // or # in other languages, this would be a lot easier (actually, there is, but it sounds like your code doesn't follow this convention). The only thing I can think of would be to check whether every line (or maybe 99% of lines, and not counting empty lines or lines commented with *) has a period somewhere before position 72.
One thing you DON'T want to do is apply any heuristics to the part after position 72. That is, you don't want to be checking the comments to see if they're valid COBOL. You want to check what you know is COBOL first, and see if that works by itself. There are several reasons for this:
Comments written in English are likely to have periods and quotes in them, so your first and second bullet points are out.
Natural languages are WAY harder to parse than something like COBOL.
The comments could easily have COBOL in them (maybe someone commented out the previous version of the line).
An important rule for comments is that they should never affect what the program does. If changing the comments can change how the program is compiled, you violate that.
All that in mind, my opinion is that you shouldn't use heuristics at all. You should always try to compile the program under both conventions unless one is explicitly specified. There's a chance that code will compile successfully under both conventions, and then you'll have two different programs and no way to tell which one is correct.
If that happens, you need to compare the two results (perhaps with a hash or something) to see if they're the same program. If they're the same, great, but if not, you'll need to force the user to explicitly choose a convention.
Most COBOL compilers will allow you to generate and analyze the post text manipulation phase.
The text preprocessor output can be seen (using OpenCOBOL for the example)
cobc -E program.cob
The text manipulation processor deals with any COPY ... REPLACING compiler directives, as well as converting SOURCE FORMAT IS FIXED (with line continuations, string literal concatenations, comment line removal, among other things) to the actual free format that the compiler lexical analyzer needs. A lot of the OpenCOBOL toolkits (Cross referencer and Animator, to name two) use source code AFTER the preprocessor pass. I don't think you'll lose any street cred if your parser program relies on post processed source code files.

Resources