ADSM-L

Re: Return Codes

1996-12-10 15:36:48
Subject: Re: Return Codes
From: "Pittson, Timothy ,Corp/US" <tpittson AT HIMAIL.HCC DOT COM>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 15:36:48 -0500
Francis,
        Regarding your example of deleting the local copy of a file that was
supposed to be archived, there's a parameter for the ADSM client,
'-deletefiles' that does what you're looking for.

Tim Pittson

>----------
>From:  Francis Dequenne[SMTP:syf AT ECMWF DOT INT]
>Sent:  Tuesday, December 10, 1996 1:19 PM
>To:    Multiple recipients of list ADSM-L
>Subject:       Re: Return Codes
>
>Dwight,
>
>I am afraid that I do not agree with your point of view, at least on UNIX
>platforms. Commands should provide meaningful return codes, for the sake of
>poor programmers that have to write scripts :-). It is then the
>user/programmer
>responsibility to ignore these codes or not.
>
>For example, if one wants to use adsm to archive/retrieve files, and these
>operations need to be done as part of a batch script, one has presently a
>hard
>time to trap error conditions. Certainly on our site, these can not be
>ignored
>(e.g. before deleting the local copy of a file that was supposed to be
>archived, we need to make sure that no error were encountered during the
>archive processing.).
>
>On Dec 10, 11:02am, Dwight Cook wrote:
><=> Subject: Re: Return Codes
><=>     NO IT DOESN'T... BUT like you mentioned if you look in your log
><=>     (unless you are running quiet) you will see everything listed with a
><=>     status and then at the end there will be an overall condition of
><=>     completion statement...
><=>
><=>     Lots of folks have complained about this but ADSM is following the
>                                                     =====================
><=>     guidelines of all other programs basically...
>        =============================================
>
>Are you sure about this?
>
><=>     compare it to logging
><=>     onto your AIX node... you run many commands/tasks... if you run a
><=>     program that crashes would you want your logon session to report that
><=>     it failed when you logoff/exit ?  Better would be, if you were typing
><=>     90 miles an hour, hit your caplock, typed LS <ent> and the system
><=>     would come back with LS not found... one little syntax error... would
><=>     you now want misc reporting to state that your logon session was a
><=>     failure due to that ? ? ? ? ?
>
>Return codes should not be simply classified as success of failure. A simple
>method that could be used with dsmc is to provide a 0 rc if everything went
>well, 1 if warning messages  (W) have been encountered, 2 if real error
>messages (E) have been encountered. Much more elaborate schemes could be
>defined, I am sure.
>
><=>
><=>     later
><=>         Dwight
><=>
><=>
><=>
><=>______________________________ Reply Separator
>_________________________________
><=>Subject: Return Codes
><=>Author:  ADSM-L (ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU) at unix,mime
><=>Date:    12/9/96 3:32 PM
><=>
><=>
><=>Hello,
><=>
><=>Does anybody know if the AIX command line interface, dsmc, provides any
><=>kind of return code indication as to the status of a backup or archive
><=>operation? The user guide certainly doesn't contain any info on the
><=>subject. It sure would beat searching thru the redirected output of the
><=>backup/archive job for a text string containing '... ended with 0
>failures'
><=> End of excerpt from Dwight Cook
>
>
>
>--
>Regards
>
>+-------------------+----------------------------------+---------------------
>+
>| Francis Dequenne  | Systems Section                  |      /~~\  /~~\
>|
>| ECMWF             | e-mail: fdequenne AT ecmwf DOT int      |     /    \/    
>\
>|
>| Shinfield Park    | Tel:    (+44 1734) 499361        |   ECMWF
>|
>| Reading           | Fax:    (+44 1734) 869450        |   ECMWF
>|
>| Berkshire RG2 9AX | Telex:  (+44 1734) 847908        |     \    /\    /
>|
>| United Kingdom    |                                  |      \__/  \__/
>|
>+-------------------+----------------------------------+---------------------
>+
>
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>