Re: help with tables

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:37:24 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx () wrote:

In article <bav1q3t26jjt26156j9eh4lpp1ivtot9a0@xxxxxxx>,
Robert <no@xxxxxx> wrote:

That's similar to a way I have seen things done on mainframes, yes... but
a way that would not pass muster in more than a few shops where I've
worked and would have gotten you laughed out of Prod Implementation
reviews.

I've never seen a Prod Implementation review. I've only seen reviews
BEFORE testing began.
Sounds like you're putting untested rewrites into production.

That might be due to the fact that it is something you admit to being
outside of your experience, Mr Wagner; a Prod Implementation review can
require a programmer to submit test results.

In my experience, test results are checked by TEST TEAMS, who run pair, integration,
system, regression and performance tests. Each test case is evidenced by a document
showing expected versus actual, and signed in blood. Unit tests run by programmers aren't
taken seriously by anyone.

(if 3100- begins in column 8 (as indicated by the debugging line
following it) then the imperatives which follow precede column 12)

My keypunch machine was down.

Try the ISPF editor, Mr Wagner... it's good 1970s technology.

Outside the mainframe world it's called XEdit and KEdit. I wrote one in Cobol.
Mine didn't have REXX; its macro language was anything that compiled to machine language.
I don't use it much now.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: help with tables
    ... I've never seen a Prod Implementation review. ... Now think of expanding your experience, Mr Wagner... ... returns it, to the programmer... ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: help with tables
    ... Robert wrote: ... I've never seen a Prod Implementation review. ... returns it, to the programmer... ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)