IDS Forum

Re: I have a puzzling situation

Posted By: Art Kagel
Date: Monday, 29 October 2012, at 1:22 p.m.

In Response To: RE: I have a puzzling situation (John Adamski)

The user's complete environment will not be set up when SYSTEM is called as
the csh profile scripts (/etc/login and $HOME/.login) is only executed by a
login shell, not a sub-shell which is what the engine will be using to
execute the command. The sub-shel will only execute the user's
$HOME/.cshrc script. Maybe the users who have the problem have more of
their environment set up in /etc/login or $HOME/.login and are missing
something in their .cshrc or maybe they don't have write privs on /tmp
(unusual I know, but worth a quick check).

Art

Art S. Kagel
Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com)
Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/

Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions
and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any
other organization with which I am associated either explicitly,
implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of
other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated nor
those of the entities themselves.

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:28 PM, John Adamski <adamski@graceland.edu>wrote:

> Art, Mark & Paul:
>
> I have verified that the two users I am using in testing have the same
> default
> shell (csh) and that their PATHs are the same. At least an echo $PATH
> returns
> the same. Our ERP does strange things with the path variable so still
> could be
> a PATH thing.
>
> I can't upgrade to FC5 or FC6 as our ERP provider is, hmm how to say this
> politely - doesn't believe in keeping up to date with the latest release of
> software they us. So, that option is not an option. :-(
>
> Since this sounds more like an OS permission problem I will continue
> searching
> for what is different between my two test users.
>
> Side note: I'm not exactly sure what the production procedure does as I
> don't
> think the developer told the name of the production proc. He just gave me
> his
> test proc.
>
> Since all the people they are talking about are in the same department
> (accounting) and I guessing which proc is having the problem. It echo's the
> script call with parameters to a file in /tmp then calls the script. It
> looks
> like it fails on the echo.
>
> The test proc was created as it is time consuming to setup a situation and
> get
> the production proc to run.
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ids-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:ids-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Art
> Kagel
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 9:13 AM
> To: ids@iiug.org
> Subject: Re: I have a puzzling situation [28657]
>
> Missed the procedure source below. Make sure that everyone has mailx (or
> whatever) in their default PATH or script the commands with a PATH set in
> the
> script.
>
> Art
>
> Art S. Kagel
> Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com)
> Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/
>
> Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions
> and
> do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any other
> organization with which I am associated either explicitly, implicitly, or
> by
> inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of other individuals
> affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated nor those of the
> entities themselves.
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Art Kagel <art.kagel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If the SYSTEM command is running a shell script, check to see if the
> > users who are getting the -668 error have a different default shell or
> > have a shell other than their default shell set in the SHELL
> > environment variable that may be returning an error due to some syntax
> > that these users' shells are not recognizing. Or possibly the script
> > lists a shell in the first line (#!bash) but not a full path and these
> > users' PATHs are not set the same as everyone else's. A simple fix to
> > either problem may be to make sure that the script that is executed
> > includes a "#!" line that includes that fill path to the shell it needs
> to
> run properly.
> >
> > Art
> >
> > Art S. Kagel
> > Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com)
> > Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/
> >
> > Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own
> > opinions and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the
> > IIUG, nor any other organization with which I am associated either
> > explicitly, implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions
> > reflect those of other individuals affiliated with any entity with
> > which I am affiliated nor those of the entities themselves.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:48 AM, John Adamski <adamski@graceland.edu
> >wrote:
> >
> >> HPUX 11.31 on BL8709c Integrity server IDS 11.70.FC4
> >>
> >> A little over a month ago we upgraded to 11.70 and the developers say
> >> that since then some users have been having problems executing
> >> procedures that have the SYSTEM command in them.
> >>
> >> One of the developers has created a test procedure to help identify
> >> the cause of this reported problem. So far we know of two users that
> >> can't run the test procedure, they get a 668 error. All other users
> >> we have tried can execute the procedure successfully.
> >>
> >> Checking permission on the users that work and the ones that don't
> >> did not identify any cause. We check both OS and Informix.
> >>
> >> We are testing using dbaccess using this command
> >>
> >> execute procedure testsysfail()
> >>
> >> The two users that fail get this message when they run.
> >>
> >> SQL: New Run Modify Use-editor Output Choose Save Info Drop Exit Run
> >> the current SQL statements.
> >>
> >> ----------------------- cars@carsitcp ---------- Press CTRL-W for
> >> Help
> >> --------
> >>
> >> (expression)
> >>
> >> Failed, error 668
> >>
> >> 1 row(s) retrieved.
> >>
> >> I have included the latest version of the test procedure that the
> >> developer is using below. Does anyone have any idea what might be
> >> causing these two users to get a 668 error when they run the
> >> procedure? Or what I might do to resolve this?
> >>
> >> {
> >> Revision Information (Automatically maintained by 'make' - DON'T
> >> CHANGE)
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ----
> >> $Header: procskeleton,v 8.0 2002/05/09 08:36:56 debarthe Released $
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ----
> >> }
> >> drop procedure testsysfail;
> >>
> >> create procedure testsysfail()
> >> returning char(32);
> >>
> >> {The SQL data type subset includes all the SQL data types except
> >> BYTE, SERIAL, and TEXT.} {char, nchar, date, datetime, decimal,
> >> numeric, float, integer, money smallfloat, smallint, real, varchar,
> >> nvarchar {define global var1 integer default default 0;} {define var2
> >> like id_rec.ss_no;} {define var3 char(10);}
> >>
> >> define sys_var char(256);
> >>
> >> {This exception traps for error 284 multiple records from subquery
> >> and must immediately follow the defines} on exception in (-668)
> >>
> >> return "Failed, error 668";
> >> end exception;
> >>
> >> Set isolation to dirty read;
> >>
> >> set optimization low;
> >>
> >> --set debug file to "debugxxx" with append; --trace on;
> >> -- let sys_var = "echo this is a test > /tmp/"||USER||"test.test";
> >>
> >> let sys_var = "mailx -s 'This is a test' debarthe"; system sys_var;
> >>
> >> return "succeded";
> >> end procedure;
> >>
> >> grant execute on testsysfail to public;
> >>
> >> {Add an execute for testing and to try to force optimization}
> >>
> >> --execute procedure testsysfail();
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> *******************************************************************************
> >> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> --e89a8f3ba7836ca74204cd3342fd
>
>
>
> *******************************************************************************
> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>
>
>
> *******************************************************************************
> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>
>

--e89a8f3b9c3f13a6f204cd35eb62

Messages In This Thread

• I have a puzzling situation
  John Adamski -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 9:48 a.m.
  • Re: I have a puzzling situation
    Art Kagel -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 10:09 a.m.
  • Re: I have a puzzling situation
    Art Kagel -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 10:12 a.m.
    • RE: I have a puzzling situation
      John Adamski -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 12:28 p.m.
      • Re: I have a puzzling situation
        Art Kagel -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 1:22 p.m.
        • RE: I have a puzzling situation
          jim-cramer@uiowa.edu -- Tuesday, 30 October 2012, at 2:21 p.m.
          • RE: I have a puzzling situation
            John Adamski -- Wednesday, 31 October 2012, at 10:58 a.m.
            • RE: I have a puzzling situation
              jim-cramer@uiowa.edu -- Wednesday, 31 October 2012, at 12:50 p.m.
              • RE: I have a puzzling situation
                John Adamski -- Thursday, 1 November 2012, at 10:09 a.m.
                • RE: I have a puzzling situation
                  jim-cramer@uiowa.edu -- Thursday, 1 November 2012, at 11:20 a.m.
                  • RE: I have a puzzling situation
                    John Adamski -- Thursday, 1 November 2012, at 3:54 p.m.
                    • RE: I have a puzzling situation
                      jim-cramer@uiowa.edu -- Thursday, 1 November 2012, at 4:44 p.m.
                    • Re: RE: I have a puzzling situation
                      JASON HARRIS -- Friday, 2 November 2012, at 12:33 a.m.
                • RE: I have a puzzling situation
                  jim-cramer@uiowa.edu -- Thursday, 1 November 2012, at 1:53 p.m.
                  • Re: I have a puzzling situation
                    David Zinder -- Thursday, 1 November 2012, at 2:14 p.m.
    • Re: I have a puzzling situation
      FRANK J. COMPUTER -- Wednesday, 31 October 2012, at 4:01 a.m.
      • RE: I have a puzzling situation
        John Adamski -- Wednesday, 31 October 2012, at 11:12 a.m.
        • RE: I have a puzzling situation
          david@smooth1.co.uk -- Wednesday, 31 October 2012, at 12:02 p.m.
          • RE: I have a puzzling situation
            John Adamski -- Wednesday, 31 October 2012, at 4:11 p.m.
            • RE: I have a puzzling situation
              jim-cramer@uiowa.edu -- Wednesday, 31 October 2012, at 4:55 p.m.
  • RE: I have a puzzling situation
    Mark Tyrer -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 10:21 a.m.
    • Re: I have a puzzling situation
      Art Kagel -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 10:36 a.m.
      • RE: I have a puzzling situation
        Paul Watson -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 10:42 a.m.
        • Re: I have a puzzling situation
          Art Kagel -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 11:07 a.m.
  • Re: I have a puzzling situation
    Jonathan Leffler -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 1:19 p.m.

IDS Forum is maintained by Administrator with WebBBS 5.12.