Gen 8.0 FP1 and Batch z/OS Libraries

A previous posting described the new Gen 8.0 feature for z/OS dynamic RI triggers and libraries and an issue related to batch support. This has been addressed in Gen 8.0 Feature Pack 1 which is currently under beta test. FP1 also introduces some a useful enhancement to host encyclopaedia construction in allowing you to specify separate on-line and batch load libraries, so that when a dynamic action block needs to be linked separately for on-line and batch, this can be done from the same business system into separate load libraries.

Continuous Integration and Gen

Continuous Integration (CI) is a practice often undertaken as part of agile development or extreme programming approaches where development team members frequently ‘integrate’ their work, often every few hours.

The requirement for code ‘integration’ most often results from the ability in most development approaches of allowing multiple developers to checkout the same source code and then rely on then ‘integrating’ their changes back into the master copy stored in a repository. It also typically results in an automated build process (and possibly also automated test) to ensure that the integrated changes are compatible with changes applied by other developers to the same or related source.

The objectives of CI are to improve the quality of software and reduce the time taken to deliver, especially by reducing or eliminating the costly and time-consuming integration tasks by ensuring that any integration issues are resolved early on and not as a massive exercise late on the development process.

Some of the technical issues that CI attempts to address are not applicable in a Gen environment. Only one person can checkout an object with modify access from a model and on upload, Gen ensures that at a basic level, the changes are consistent with the model, and so it is tempting to conclude that CI is not applicable in a Gen project.

However there are still several areas where CI concepts can be usefully applied.
The first relates to generated code and test environments. In our development environment, we generate code from the CSE into a shared development directory. In this way, every developer tests from the same code base and does not need to worry about maintaining their own private source code, object code or database. There are several other benefits of using server based code generation over local toolset generation, and perhaps this could be the subject of another post sometime…

It is important that the changes to the model, once uploaded, are correctly generated. We therefore use GuardIEn’s Upload Assistant to automatically perform the impact analysis and then generate the affected modules after each upload. In this way, the generate/build process ensures that the development code repository is kept up to date, and any errors are trapped at an early stage.

Another aspect of CI is ensuring that quality control is applied continuously. Numerous studies have shown that errors are far cheaper to fix if they are detected and fixed at an early stage in the life-cycle. We run about 25 checks on the objects changed automatically on upload using the integration between VerifIEr and the Upload Assistant. These checks detect common errors in the code (for example missing view matching or redundant code) and whilst the errors should be detected during testing, it is far easier and cheaper to correct the errors whilst the subset is still downloaded and before time has been wasted generating and testing the code.

Alternative View Mapping Technique

The recommended technique for passing data between action blocks is to use view matching on the USE statement. One disadvantage of this method is that the views need to be mapped all the way down the calling chain. For example, if we want to pass some data from AB1 to AB9, then the view(s) must be mapped on every possible USE statement:

AB1
->AB2
-->AB3
--->AB4
---->AB9
->AB5
-->AB6
--->AB7
---->AB8
------>AB9

With some very complex structures involving hundreds of possible paths through the logic, this can involve a lot of extra views being created in the intermediate action blocks in the calling chain and the potential for not mapping some of the views, thus the data is lost during the calling chain.

A technique that we have used to provide an alternative method of passing data around is to have a common action block that stores the data in an uninitialised local view.

The logic of the action block is as follows:

SAVE_DATA
IMPORTS
in action code
link my_data string (exported)
LOCALS
temp my_data string (not initialised)

IF in action code = 'P'
MOVE link my_data to temp my_data
ELSE
MOVE temp my_data to link my_data

The revised logic for the application is now:

AB1:
SET temp action code to 'P'
SET temp my_data string to 'whatever data you want to pass'
USE SAVE_DATA
WHICH IMPORTS: temp action, temp my_string

Any action block that wants the value of my_data can then use SAVE_DATA to get the value without it needing to be passed on every intermediate USE statement.

Note that this technique will only work within a single load module and cannot be used to share data across load modules unless SAVE_DATA is created as an external action block with shared memory.

In the vast majority of cases, you should still use view mapping, but there might be some cases where the above technique will allow you to easily share a small amount of temporary data between a large number of action blocks without needing to include it as data passed on all USE statements.

64 bit conversion

Gen r8 introduces the first platform to support 64 bit C code, which is HP Itanium. For the next release of our products, we will be using Gen r8 for Itanium and hence have had to port to 64 bit.

The UNIX source code generated by Gen is not specific to a particular UNIX implementation, so the same code is compiled for 32 bit on AIX and PA-RISC and 64 bit for Itanium. The difference is in the compiler options used.

One difference in the Gen r8 generated C code is that the variable used for the repeating group view 'last' flag has changed from an int to a long. In 32 bit architectures, an int and a long are both 32 bits, whereas for 64 bit, an int is still 32 bits but a long is 64 bits for the LP64 architecture used in UNIX (but still 32 bit for the LLP64 architecture used by Windows IA-64).

This means that EAB code must be modified to change an int to a long for the repeating group view variables in import and export views. You will also need to look through the EAB code to see if you have used int and long incorrectly since they are no longer the same. The same is true for pointers, which become 64 bits in both LP64 and LLP64 architectures.

Changing attribute lengths

We recently decided to increase the length of a database column (attribute) to support longer path lengths. In principle this is a very easy task:

a) Change the attribute length
b) Amend the column length in the database design
c) Use database ALTER statements to change the physical database column length
d) Re-generate the affected code

In practice however, two aspects of the change were trickier:

1) Where the attribute is referenced in external action blocks, these will need to be identified and modified.
2) Code that is dependant on the attribute length might need to be modified.

The first issue was easy to solve. We created a custom function in Object List+ that lists all external action blocks that reference the attribute in an import or export view. The resulting list was then copied to a GuardIEn Change Request and then opened in XOS. All of the affected externals could then be downloaded and modified.

The second issue was harder. We had some code that assumed the old length of the attribute (in this case 50), for example, SET text = SUBSTR(attribute,49,2) was supposed to return the last two characters of the attribute. Now I agree that this is not great code, and the attribute length could be referenced using the length function rather than 50, but it was assumed that the length would not change and the hard-coded value used instead of the length to improve performance.

To identify these occurrences, a new VerifIEr check was developed that scans for code that uses the length of an attribute as a hard-coded value. This was able to identify code that needed to be changed and can also identify any future occurrences of this style of coding that would not be tolerant of a change in attribute length.

This illustrates one of the strengths of CA Gen. Because the action diagram 'source code' is stored in a SQL database using a precise structure (as opposed to the text files used by almost any other development tool), it supports complex queries that can scan the action diagrams looking for specific coding constructs.

Of Mice and Men

Slightly off topic, but this might be of interest to older Gen developers. The Gen toolset is very 'mouse intensive' and much work needs to be done with the mouse rather than the keyboard. After 20 years of this, some of us older Gen developers are starting to feel the strain (literally), with RSI type irritations.

I found that changing to a different type of mouse was very helpful, and after trying a few out, now use a Vertical Mouse (see http://www.evoluent.com/). You may prefer a different style of mouse, and perhaps the main benefit is to change to something different?

Multi Row Fetch Experiences (3)

In previous postings I have described how we have converted all of our READ EACH statements to use multi-row fetch. Also discussed were the results of a test that showed a significant performance improvement for a simple example which only had a single READ EACH statement. These improvements were extreme because a normal application will perform a lot more processing than simply the SQL for the READ statement.

On a real world example for a complex impact analysis, we have found an 18% reduction in elapsed time, which is a significant and worthwhile improvement given the low cost of implementing the changes to the model, especially since we have automated the setting of the multi-row fetch property using VerifIEr.

Parallel Generation Results

We have now implemented the new CSE server. This has two 4-core processors and we recently conducted a simple test to benchmark the improvements gained when running CSE generation tasks in parallel (See previous post for introduction).

The results were that we obtained was a 60% reduction in elapsed time when running 4 threads in parallel and 70% reduction for 8 threads.

This was obtained with no other processes running, so for normal use, we plan to restrict a single generate task to a maximum of 4 parallel generation threads because of other tasks and on-line server processing requirements.

Parallel Processing

As raw CPU speeds plateau, servers now achieve improved performance through multi-processor and multi-core architectures. This is ideal for servers that handle lots of separate processes like transaction processing or web requests, but what about large batch jobs? These tend to be designed as single threaded, so can only run as a single process for the application and a separate process for the database manager.

One of the recent enhancements we have been working on for the next release of GuardIEn is to reduce the overall elapsed time for large generation jobs on the client/server encyclopaedia by running multiple generates in parallel, thus taking advantage of multi-core servers. (We had already enabled parallel generates on the host encyclopaedia some years ago, which was implemented by submitting multiple jobs).

Because our tools are developed with CA Gen, we needed to work out the best way of implementing a parallel processing architecture.

There are several design alternatives to enable multi-thread processing for a CA Gen application. For this requirement, we decided to create child processes launched from the Gen action block and have the Gen AB wait for the child processes to complete. This enabled the design to launch a variable number of parallel generates (controlled by a parameter) and issue another generate when the previous one completed. The creation of the child processes is performed by a C external.

On our current test server that only has 2 processors, we have noticed a 30% reduction in elapsed time, and we are due to implement a new server with 2 4-core processors, which we hope will show even better reductions in elpased times for large generation tasks.

Multi Row Fetch Experiences (2)

A second issue with multi-row fetch (see previous posts) affects application design.

With a normal READ EACH, each row is fetched one at a time, so if the row fetched has been affected by previous processing within the READ EACH, the fetched row's column values will be up to date.

However with a multi-row fetch, blocks of n rows are fetched into an array at the same time. If you then update row n+1 whilst processing row n, then when you come to process row n+1, the values in the entity action views will not be the latest values since they are current as of the time that they were fetched and hence not include any updated values.

This should be a rare occurrence, but worth bearing in mind when deciding if multi-row fetch is applicable.