Listing a Directory Tree Contents

[kitvb1]

cross-post from http://www.support.ecofitonline.com/...-Tree-Contents

For those of you using this utility, I have had to make a minor change. I included a 6-month bug

After sitting in IFS for 6 months, the display of the timestamp format of the 'ls' command changes from 'mmm dd tt:tt' to a datestamp of 'mmm dd yyyy' and the time is omitted. This is appears to be standard for linux, aix, etc.

To correct this, change the relative line in the CLP to:

CHGVAR     VAR(&QSHSTMT) VALUE('ls -lR[COLOR=red][B]T[/B][/COLOR]' *BCAT &AttchPath)

[MichaelCatalani]

Re: Listing a Directory Tree Contents

For those of you using this utility, I have had to make a minor change. I included a 6-month bug

Bugs that are 6 months or older become "features"

[jamief]

Re: Listing a Directory Tree Contents

and you should have to pay to have "features" removed, cause others have gotten used to them....

[kitvb1]

Re: Listing a Directory Tree Contents

I spotted this 'cos I validate that the email attachment exists before attaching it to a document - and 6 months after installing this system it suddenly stopped working. It was not hard to find out why... but I placed a call with IBM and they were also surprised by this behaviour but pointed fingers at Linux "'cos we can reproduce this on Linux, so it must be standard Linux/AIX then'. Case closed... "works as designed"? - crap design

[MichaelCatalani]

Re: Listing a Directory Tree Contents

Why on God's green Earth would they ever implement a command with a variable timestamp format? Good grief, that's the type of stuff that makes me want to shoot myself in the face.

[kitvb1]

Re: Listing a Directory Tree Contents

Schicky Mickey PC programmers... sheesh.
I also couldn't believe it - hence the Service call to IBM.

Come on let's face it... 50% of the time one gets a "Error on page" when looking at dynamic content web pages.
Even my bank displays transactions dated 30th February!

[MichaelCatalani]

Re: Listing a Directory Tree Contents

What is their logic behind using a 3 digit month? Do they believe there's a chance we might expand the number of months in a year to 1000?