Conference azur::mcc

I seem to remember talking with Jill about a similar problem.   Are you doing
this from the FCL?   What does the IMPM tell you when you do the equivalent
command?

I believe that is the ILV-encoding on out_p isn't done absolutely correctly,
FCL will simply igonre it and drop it on the floor.  If this is the case, then
IMPM will probably tell you something like "unexpected data in out_p" or
somesuch.

  Henk,

  What command were you doing when you got the problem?  Is this your
  own MM you are testing?

  /keith

Hi,

At the end of this note is the output added.
I gave the following two commands:
 - show pabx .tc_uto pabx_accounting ext_group test all char
 - show pabx .tc_uto pabx_accounting ext_group * all char 

I can't test this with the IMPM because with the IMPM you can't give a command
with a wildcard (*).

I hope this is the right information for you.



Regards Henk.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECmcc (X1.2.15)

MCC> show pabx .tc_uto pabx_accounting ext_group test all char


*****************************************************
*     FCL PM Arguments before call_function:        *
*****************************************************

VERB code:      1
PARTITION code: 4
AES dump of ENTITY IN:

Depth=0  Class = 59 Instance = UTES09_NS:.tc_uto Id = 1 Dt = 5
Depth=1  Class = 10 Instance =  No curlen  Id = 0 Dt = 0
Depth=2  Class = 20 Instance = test  Id = 5 Dt = 3


ILV dump of IN_P: in_p is NULL
ILV dump of IN_Q: in_q is NULL
TIME SPEC is: 0, NOW
handle state done

**********************************************
FCL PM Arguments on return from call_function:

CVR returned:
%MCC-S-RESPONSE, success with response reply

ILV dump of OUT_P:

[  1 ] (
    [  1 ] (
        [  10 ] (
            [  1 ]             34  -- 4
            [  3 ]             00
            [  4 ] (
                [  1 ]                 33 33 32 30  -- 3320
                [  1 ]                 32 33 33 32  -- 2332
                [  1 ]                 39 39 39 39  -- 9999
                )
            )
        )
    )
AES dump of ENTITY OUT:

Depth=0  Class = 59 Instance = UTES09_NS:.tc_uto Id = 1 Dt = 5
Depth=1  Class = 10 Instance =  No curlen  Id = 0 Dt = 0
Depth=2  Class = 20 Instance = test  Id = 10 Dt = 3



PABX UTES09_NS:.tc_uto PABX_ACCOUNTING EXT_GROUP "test"
AT 12-MAR-1992 08:11:49 Characteristics

Examination of attributes shows:
                       Numbers in Group = { "3320",
                                            "2332",
                                            "9999" }
MCC> show pabx .tc_uto pabx_accounting ext_group * all char


*****************************************************
*     FCL PM Arguments before call_function:        *
*****************************************************

VERB code:      1
PARTITION code: 4
AES dump of ENTITY IN:

Depth=0  Class = 59 Instance = UTES09_NS:.tc_uto Id = 1 Dt = 5
Depth=1  Class = 10 Instance =  No curlen  Id = 0 Dt = 0
Depth=2  Class = 20 Instance =  No curlen  Id = 0 Dt = 0


ILV dump of IN_P: in_p is NULL
ILV dump of IN_Q: in_q is NULL
TIME SPEC is: 0, NOW
handle state more

**********************************************
FCL PM Arguments on return from call_function:

CVR returned:
%MCC-S-RESPONSE, success with response reply

ILV dump of OUT_P:

[  1 ] (
    [  1 ] (
        [  10 ] (
            [  1 ]             34  -- 4
            [  3 ]             00
            [  4 ] (
                [  1 ]                 33 33 32 30  -- 3320
                [  1 ]                 32 33 33 32  -- 2332
                [  1 ]                 39 39 39 39  -- 9999
                )
            )
        )
    )
AES dump of ENTITY OUT:

Depth=0  Class = 59 Instance = UTES09_NS:.tc_uto Id = 1 Dt = 5
Depth=1  Class = 10 Instance =  No curlen  Id = 0 Dt = 0
Depth=2  Class = 10 Instance = test  Id = 5 Dt = 3



PABX UTES09_NS:.tc_uto PABX_ACCOUNTING EXTENSION "test"
AT 12-MAR-1992 08:28:45 Characteristics

Examination of attributes shows:



*****************************************************
*     FCL PM Arguments before call_function:        *
*****************************************************

VERB code:      1
PARTITION code: 4
AES dump of ENTITY IN:

Depth=0  Class = 59 Instance = UTES09_NS:.tc_uto Id = 1 Dt = 5
Depth=1  Class = 10 Instance =  No curlen  Id = 0 Dt = 0
Depth=2  Class = 20 Instance =  No curlen  Id = 0 Dt = 0


ILV dump of IN_P: in_p is NULL
ILV dump of IN_Q: in_q is NULL
TIME SPEC is: 0, NOW
handle state done more

**********************************************
FCL PM Arguments on return from call_function:

CVR returned:
%MCC-S-RESPONSE, success with response reply

ILV dump of OUT_P:

[  1 ] (
    [  1 ] (
        [  10 ] (
            [  1 ]             34  -- 4
            [  3 ]             00
            [  4 ] (
                [  1 ]                 39 31  -- 91
                [  1 ]                 39 32  -- 92
                [  1 ]                 39 39  -- 99
                )
            )
        )
    )
AES dump of ENTITY OUT:

Depth=0  Class = 59 Instance = UTES09_NS:.tc_uto Id = 1 Dt = 5
Depth=1  Class = 10 Instance =  No curlen  Id = 0 Dt = 0
Depth=2  Class = 10 Instance = test2  Id = 5 Dt = 3



PABX UTES09_NS:.tc_uto PABX_ACCOUNTING EXTENSION "test2"
AT 12-MAR-1992 08:28:47 Characteristics

Examination of attributes shows:

MCC>

  Henk,

  Compare the FCL dump of Out-Entity between the two commands:

  >  show pabx .tc_uto pabx_accounting ext_group test all char
  >     :
  >     :
  >  Depth=0  Class = 59 Instance = UTES09_NS:.tc_uto Id = 1 Dt = 5
  >  Depth=1  Class = 10 Instance =  No curlen  Id = 0 Dt = 0
  >  Depth=2  Class = 20 Instance = test  Id = 10 Dt = 3

     and

  >  show pabx .tc_uto pabx_accounting ext_group * all char
  >     :
  >     :
  >  Depth=0  Class = 59 Instance = UTES09_NS:.tc_uto Id = 1 Dt = 5
  >  Depth=1  Class = 10 Instance =  No curlen  Id = 0 Dt = 0
  >  Depth=2  Class = 10 Instance = test  Id = 5 Dt = 3

  The Class code and Instance Id are different for AES Level # 2
  This would appear to be wrong -- as the first command displayed correctly.

  /keith

Keith,

Thank you very much for your reply!!
That was the problem.

What silly that I didn't see that ;-)



Henk.

> Thank you very much for your reply!!
> That was the problem.
> 
> What silly that I didn't see that ;-)

  I'm just glad to help ... sometimes it just takes a second pair of eyes  8)

  /keith