| Author |
Message
|
| PeterPotkay |
 Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 3:30 pm Post subject: How do you know your Deploy really worked? |
 |
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
I not have coded many MQSI flows, but as part of the Infrastructure Support team here in charge of Production, I often deploy message flows to our production environment.
After deploying a new subflow where the only change (I was told) was adding some more conditions to a case statement, the log said the deploy worked, and all the input queues to the flows showed messages flying through. Everything seems OK.
But how do I reeeeallly know that it worked, and maybe I am not running with the old subflows? (I dont want to have to drop test messages that will execute that section of the code, and then have to look at the output messages).
I am not interested in determining if a flow in my workspace is new or not, that I can see. I want to know if there is a way to know exactly what is deployed and executing.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Bosco |
| Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 30 Nov 2003
Posts: 17
|
You can ask the developer to include a PASSTHROUGH node in the msgflow. Put some versioning indicator in its label. Turn on the Accounting and Statistics PubSub in the broker. Get a snapshot of the statistics. In the statistics the versioning indicator in the label will show up.
Another way that maybe a bit rough is to look in the ConfigMgr DB2 table CMSGFLOW. The actually msgflow is stored in CXMLDATA column. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fazz |
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 20 Feb 2004
Posts: 144
Location: England
|
Whats the PASSTHROUGH node?, is this only in version 5? I have been using 2.1 for a while now and have never come across this node.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Paul D |
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 16 May 2001
Posts: 200
Location: Green Bay Packer Country
|
New to 5.0. The manual states:
Purpose
Use the Passthrough node in a subflow as the first node that follows the Input node to identify the subflow in which it is included. You can specify an identifier (Label) in whatever way meets your requirements, for example to identify the level or version of the flow in which it is configured.
The Passthrough node does not process the message in any way. The message that it propagates on its out terminal is the same message that it received on its in terminal.
_________________
Thanks!!!
Paul D |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
But will this actually prove anything after the deploy? I want to know exactly what is running in an execution group.
After reading up on this in the manual, it seems to be just a cosmetic node to look at while the flow is in your workspace. Forgive my ignorance if 5.0 introduces some other concepts where this node would be viewable in an execution group running a flow that uses a subflow.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Paul D |
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 16 May 2001
Posts: 200
Location: Green Bay Packer Country
|
Sorry, got confused with this other post when writing my reply. Check out this post, which explains the the Accounting and statistics can be used with this node track versions of deployed flows and subflows.
http://www.mqseries.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14472
_________________
Thanks!!!
Paul D |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
I haven't used the PASSTHROUGH node yet myself, but Bosco said that the Accounting and Statistics PubSub component of the broker will cause the information in the PASSTHROUGH label to be published in the statistics.
So it's not a "click on the message flow in the broker domain and see the version of the flow", but...
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
