Prev
Next
Forums Enterprise Resource Planning & Manufacturing Lawson S3 Procurement

RQ300 update

 2 Replies
 0 Subscribed to this topic
 1 Subscribed to this forum
Sort:
Author
Messages
ccBrian
New Member
Posts: 2
New Member
3/20/2013 9:43 PM
    Does anyone know how Lawson labels the Creation Date Cutoff & Transaction Date Cutoff for the RQ300 jobs?

    I need to update the job runtime with a Perl script and am doubting that I can just search for "Creation Date Cutoff" & "Transaction Date Cutoff"

    Both Lawson and Perl are very very new to me, so forgive me if this question is redundant or rudimentary.

    Any help is appreciated.

    Thank you! 
    Greg Moeller
    Veteran Member
    Posts: 1498
    Veteran Member
    3/21/2013 8:28 PM
      I'm NOT an expert, but I can help you with a little of this.

      Pull up RQ300 in Portal. Position your cursor in the field that you want to know about.
      Hit Ctrl-Shift-O and the name of the field will be displayed in the status bar ... (lower left normally)

      Usually, it has the 3-letter abbreviation for the table and then the field name... Your case does not.
      I do that, and find the creation date cutoff field is called CREATION-DATE, but it doesn't indicate which table it is using.
      The trans date cutoff is called TRANS-DATE, but again doesn't indicate which table it is using.
      Milo Tsukroff
      Veteran Member
      Posts: 47
      Veteran Member
      4/1/2013 2:10 PM
        Greg:

        [Warning: Technical stuff]

        Ctrl-Shift-O lets you see the field definition from the .scr file, in this case RQ300.scr. A 3-character prefix is usually part of the field definition, but is done as a matter of convenience and convention, because it's not actually mapped. The actual mapping is done by COBOL procedural code inside the PD. In the case of RQ300, you would have to track down the usage of the fields CREATION-DATE and TRANS-DATE within RQ300PD to see what files they are associated with. Reading COBOL - I actually like it but most people would sooner [ gross analogy deleted ]