CA Endevor

CA Endevor Office Hours Transcript (Feb. 17th)

  • 1.  CA Endevor Office Hours Transcript (Feb. 17th)

    Posted 02-17-2015 12:21 PM
    Lenn Thompson - CA :Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us for CA Endevor Office Hours. We've assembled a great team of CA Endevor experts -- what questions do you have for them?

     

     

    Janet Spears :What is the phone number?

     

     

    Janet Spears :nevermind...I see, no audio

     

     

    Lenn Thompson - CA :@Janet Good morning. For this session all questions should be asked via this chat feature.

     

     

    Lenn Thompson - CA :Do we have any questions for the CA Endevor team?

     

     

    Rose Sakach :Don't be shy - we are anxiously waiting to respond to you.  :-)

     

     

    Rose Sakach :Has anyone installed V17 yet?

     

     

    Janet Spears :We plan to begin on 3/2 on our test system

     

     

    Peter McCullough :@Janet - good to hear (read)!

     

     

    David James :it was just installed on one of the test systems, this past weekend so we have not have a changes to look at it yet

     

     

    Rose Sakach :@Janet and @David - what specific features are you looking to leverage first - with V17?

     

     

    David James :@ Rose - I have not looked at what it contains yet, we just know we have ot upgrade it

     

     

    Rose Sakach :@David - does that mean you are upgrading to stay current and not so much to gain new functionality?

     

     

    Janet Spears :we will be testing all of the new features, esp the ALTERs

     

     

    Janet Spears :sorry...I have it written down, but am unable to locate my notes.  Had set it aside since Dec

     

     

    David James :@Rose - yes staying current is the first need, I know some of the users will use the new package search filter,

     

     

    Rose Sakach :@Janet:  Can you share your Use Case for Alter?  Will you be updating CCIDs, Comments?  Something else?  Or... not sure yet....

     

     

    Janet Spears :yes, I am sure we will use that

     

     

    Janet Spears :especially for providing new reports

     

     

    Susie Robson :@Janet -- can you elaborate?

     

     

    Janet Spears :I doubt we will be updating CCIDs, but will test and offer to our applications if we find it safe

     

     

    Janet Spears :we provide reporting to the team who implements packages

     

     

    Janet Spears :the new feature should simplify the creations of packages

     

     

    Janet Spears :we are currently creating them based on information we currently save during each install...customizations that run with shipments

     

     

    George Rieker :@Rose -- will there be a new "record" created as to who and when ALTERed items were altered?

     

     

    John D :@janet are you talking about the ALTER ability or the package filter ability?

     

     

    Janet Spears :for reporting, the package filter

     

     

    John D :Thanks!

     

     

    Janet Spears :the wildcard will definitely allow for flexible reporting for us

     

     

    Janet Spears :lists of failed packages will be great

     

     

    Janet Spears :for applications, as well as the team who perform ships

     

     

    Peter McCullough :@Janet - the V17 enhancement is the addition of the "Exec-Failed" filter on the ISPF Packge FG  Menu option - to create a filtered selection list.

     

     

    Janet Spears :we have had to manually update metadata with regard to changing a Processor/processor group.

     

     

    Janet Spears :we are hoping that the ALTER will help there

     

     

    Janet Spears :we had huge issues with that when we changed  a product JCLPREP to JCLPLUS

     

     

    Peter McCullough :@Janet - the Alter action will definitely help with changing Processor Group Names

     

     

    Janet Spears :company wide...affected all appls

     

     

    Janet Spears :Doesn't look like we have any questions  people today.

     

     

    Janet Spears :that is too bad.  This forum is a good idea

     

     

    Janet Spears :maybe just bad timing for customers?

     

     

    George Rieker :Wny plans to back out source along with the executable to satisfy audit issues of out of sync between source and executable?

     

     

    Rose Sakach :@George - what is your first word?

     

     

    George Rieker :Any

     

     

    Janet Spears :we would love to have the source and executable tied together

     

     

    Peter McCullough :@Janet, Hi Janet the Package Report Panel optioin does not provide the  "Exec-Failed" filter option.

     

     

    Janet Spears :Personally,  I never liked the design of only backing out the executable

     

     

    Janet Spears :"Exec-Failed" filter option will definitely be GREAT

     

     

    George Rieker :@Janet .  Neither do the auditors

     

     

    Rose Sakach :@George.... Ah!  That helps.  We have an IDEA out in Ideation that describes this very suggestion.  We need you and others to comment and vote on it...  Seems to be a great idea for some and a lousy idea for others

     

     

    Janet Spears :years ago, I was told it was done that way because of the auditors...LOL

     

     

    John D :But when you really think hard about it, is backing out the source a good idea? I mean REALLY? You basically are trying to deny an auditable event occurred....

     

     

    Roy E Botsko :I 2nd that motion.  Eventually I plan to keep the source and load in sync.

     

     

    Janet Spears :we'd like our stuff in sync as well

     

     

    Janet Spears :Yes, I do think all pieces (i.e. source and load) should be kept together

     

     

    Roy E Botsko : an audit point of view, I think the 0 and -2 sources should be the same for a backout 

     

     

    Rose Sakach :@George, @Janet, @Roy - sounds like we could have a WebEx focused on this requirement.  How many of you have implemented a "home-grown" version of what you are asking?

     

     

    Janet Spears :you are just creating a monstor backing out 1 piece...in mu opinion

     

     

    George Rieker :@John -- There has to be a way to keep the audit trail

     

     

    Janet Spears :that is simple.

     

     

    John D :@george I agree... but I'm a BIG advocate of moving forward, not backward

     

     

    Janet Spears :when you back it out...create a +1 of the previous version automatically

     

     

    Janet Spears :of ALL pieces

     

     

    Roy E Botsko :Not yet, but I want to.

     

     

    John D :@janet and i agree with THAT solution... forward not backward

     

     

    Janet Spears :It accomplishes the same as backing out, but keeps the history

     

     

    John D :but remember.... when you back out one thing it ripples to possibly other things that DONT need to backout

     

     

    Roy E Botsko :I also support the moving forward option

     

     

    John D :so now you are purposely throwing the entire system "out of sync"

     

     

    George Rieker :We are in the process of automating a process to take the previous source and copying it out somewhere and after the back out of the executable, just putting the -1 version of source back in with no generate. 

     

     

    John D :im just saying this is a good idea on paper but could be really really complex

     

     

    George Rieker :Of course it is complex.  You have to determine, is it level zero - no back out available - etc.

     

     

    Rose Sakach :@All who would like to have a say in the "Backout the SOURCE with the LOAD":  The IDEA is posted here: https://communities.ca.com/ideas/102995861

     

     

    George Rieker :@Rose -- Thanks

     

     

    Rose Sakach :@All - we marked it as not planned, but can open it up for voting again, seeing that there seems to

     

    Janet Spears :

     

    I had already voted.  :-)

     

     

    Peter McCullough :Janet:

     

     

    George Rieker :Our current "plan" is to take a snapshot of the source of production immediately prior to an install.  That way we will have the -1 source "in case".

     

     

    Janet Spears :It can be made an option (with the options table or something similar).  That way it is there for those who feel it is a better way to go.

     

     

    Rose Sakach :@All - the Idea is OPEN for voting again.... please consider voting and commenting on the entry.  You will notice not everyone feels this is a good idea.

     

     

    John D :

     

     

    John D :Anyone here using CAP at all?

     

     

    George Rieker :When has everyone ever agreed on anything, lol? 

     

     

    George Rieker :We use CAP

     

     

    John D :Thoughts on it?

     

     

    Peter McCullough :@John D - CA's uses CAP

     

     

    George Rieker :Still hesitant on using it in production though because of some timing issues with newcopies etc

     

     

    John D :CA doesn't count....

     

     

    Rose Sakach :@George... GREAT point.... (w/r/t  everyone agreeing).  :-)

     

     

    Rose Sakach :@All - anyone struggling with implementing features..such as PROMOTION packages?

     

     

    Roy E Botsko : CAP was great for the initial cutover process, but it has not been needed since.  

     

     

    John D :@roy interesting. you dont see a potential for use in small promotion windows?

     

     

    Rose Sakach :@Roy - does that mean you typically have low-volume package processing?  Or are you  managing your high-volume in other ways?

     

     

    Roy E Botsko :We split the install process.  We stage early.  Then run only the job that: binds, copies, phaseins, and resets WLM at install time.   

     

     

    Roy E Botsko :CA Services created a very custom install process for us. 

     

     

    George Rieker :CAP is lightning fast - 2/3 faster in our testing.  We were pleasently pleased.

     

     

    Rose Sakach :@Roy - I think I get it... so any high-volume work gets completed well ahead of the production install?

     

     

    Roy E Botsko :We don't share DASD, so yes we run the slower Transfer and Shippment processes early.   

     

     

    Rose Sakach :@Roy - Got it... I should have said,, high volume or slow running....critical in nature... Point being, get everything where you need it to be and then make the production install very quick and easy.

     

     

    Rose Sakach :@All - anyone interested in joinin the V18 Validation program?

      

    Roy E Botsko :

     

    I like having CAP in my back pocket just in case the developers ever need to perform a large number of generates.

     

     

    George Rieker :@Roy -- With @240,000 elements - we use it at times.

     

     

    George Rieker :@Rose -- We'll have to look at the enhancements in v18 to make the determination of joining the Validation program

     

     

    Rose Sakach :@George..... 'tis better to join and hear about what's coming, then not join and wonder.... :-)

     

     

    Peter McCullough :@George - also, it's always good to have the opportunity to provide input to us!!!

     

     

    George Rieker :@Rose - - Indeed

     

     

    Rose Sakach :@All:  As a reminder.... the Validation program is NOT BETA.... no formal commitment other than receiving invitations to End-Of-Sprint Review meetings...

     

     

    Rose Sakach :@All:  Stay tuned to the communities and we will let you know when we open it up for registration

     

     

    Lenn Thompson - CA :Does anyone else have any other questions?

     

     

    Lenn Thompson - CA :Alright. Thanks very much for joining us today. We'll post the transcript later today. Keep an eye on the community for an announcement about the next session!

     

     

    Peter McCullough :@George - so right!