MANMAN HP: Mitigating An Untimely UT,252 with PowerHouse

[Johnson, Tracy]

Yesterday we had a faux pas due to an untimely 
issuance of the UT,252 command.  

Thankfully, it was done near the end of the
day so it was not a problem getting users to
log off, provided thier sessions weren't 
already locked up.

The below is our experience to repair it, and 
wondered if previous encounters by others used 
similar solutions?

1.  Re in Mfg, we ran RE,102; RE,315; RE,405;
and UT,801 (801 for the day.)

2.  We made a current backup of the affected
database.

3.  We restored the Manufacturing database
from the previous night's backup to a another
database group number (31).  

4.  We then issued the following extract 
in Quiz:

- The rep limit may vary.
- File equations should point to the 
  correct numbered group.

> USE COSTFU.QUIZ LIST
> ACC IM
> SET REP LIMIT 51000
> REPORT SUMMARY &
> ITNO &
> MCST &
> CSTMBFS &
> LABCST &
> CSTSAB &
> CSTAO2S &
> CSTAO3S &
> OUTLAB &
> CSTCMOS &
> ULAB &
> CSTSCB &
> CSTCO2S &
> CSTCO3S &
> CSTCOPS &
> CSTCOPOS &
> CSTOPBFS
> SET SUBFILE NAME COSTFU KEEP
> GO

5.  For test purposes we also restored
a current backup (made just after we
got users out of the system) to yet 
another numbered database group (45):

6.  We then issued the following upload
in QTP from Standard to Current fields
in the Item Master:  

- The proc limit may vary.
- File equations should point to the 
  correct numbered group.

> USE COSTFU.QTP LIST
> ACC *COSTFU.PUB31
*W* PowerHouse name for COSTFU.PUB31 is COSTFU.
> SET PROC LIMIT 51000
> OUTPUT IM UPDATE ON ERRORS REPORT
*W* Data name REV may conflict with the keyword REVERSE.
Access IM viaindex ITNO.
Access via ITNO using ITNO of COSTFU.
> ITEM CSTCM FINAL MCST OF COSTFU
> ITEM CSTMBFC FINAL CSTMBFS OF COSTFU
> ITEM CSTCAL FINAL LABCST OF COSTFU
> ITEM CSTCAB FINAL CSTSAB OF COSTFU
> ITEM CSTAO2C FINAL CSTAO2S OF COSTFU
> ITEM CSTAO3C FINAL CSTAO3S OF COSTFU
> ITEM CSTCOL FINAL OUTLAB OF COSTFU
> ITEM CSTCMOC FINAL CSTCMOS OF COSTFU
> ITEM CSTCCL FINAL ULAB OF COSTFU
> ITEM CSTCCB FINAL CSTSCB OF COSTFU
> ITEM CSTCO2C FINAL CSTCO2S OF COSTFU
> ITEM CSTCO3C FINAL CSTCO3S OF COSTFU
> ITEM CSTCOPC FINAL CSTCOPS OF COSTFU
> ITEM CSTCOPOC FINAL CSTCOPOS OF COSTFU
> ITEM CSTOPBFC FINAL CSTOPBFS OF COSTFU
> GO

7.  Then we ran another UT,252 in the
test (45) database group followed by 
the same reports as step 1.

- Test Result: $10 difference in Inventory Value.

8.  We finished by running the same QTP
upload in our production database (0) 
followed by UT,252 and the same reports.

The only thing I can think of remaining 
is that I still have to move the previous 
Current into Current from a recent backup.
Though with 10$ difference, I'm not sure
it matters.

BT


Tracy Johnson
MSI Schaevitz Sensors