Validation of Variables and Statements

[jellypuno]

I have a variable that is assigned as PIC 9(02).

It would be great if the extension

• can prevent me from moving "String data" to PIC 9 variables.
• can warn me that my variable will be truncated because It is only defined as PIC 9(02) and I am moving a value more than 2.
• validate missing periods in all my PERFORM inside the procedure. So far, it only validates the last PERFORM that I have.

[sergiuilie]

Thank you for opening this issue! We will consider that as an enhancement for our LSP.

[sergiuilie]

validate missing periods in all my PERFORM inside the procedure. So far, it only validates the last PERFORM that I have.

@jellypuno about this question, I have read on COBOL documentation that you can have a period at the end of multiple statements calls like in your example or after each one so we do not check for each individual statement if there is a bunch of them. Can you confirm that this is wrong and need to be fixed? will be helpful to have some examples from the book

[jellypuno]

@jellypuno about this question, I have read on COBOL documentation that you can have a period at the end of multiple statements calls like in your example or after each one so we do not check for each individual statement if there is a bunch of them. Can you confirm that this is wrong and need to be fixed? will be helpful to have some examples from the book

@sergiuilie hmmm. I guess it depends on the cobol version that you have. I tested in IBM Enterprise COBOL for z/OS 4.2.0 and IBM Enterprise COBOL for z/OS 6.2.0 and I didn't experience the error. One period is enough. But I am very sure that in the previous companies that I worked for I needed period in every line. Maybe this Cobol Version can be part of the documentation?

[sergiuilie]

We will take a look and add this to the documentation. Thank you for looking into it 👍

[venkatzhub]

@jellypuno - COBOL has evolved and there are cases where you don't need the period at the end of every line. Our solution will support the latest level of compiler and above.

[jellypuno]

It would be great as well if there's an initial validation for this one. PIC X with a Value of Number

[jellypuno]

@jellypuno - COBOL has evolved and there are cases where you don't need the period at the end of every line. Our solution will support the latest level of compiler and above.

@venkatzhub I do understand. If that is the decision then that is fine. I guess in my opinion, one positive thing about checking periods in every end of line is to prevent codes like this:

        WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
        01 TEST-VAR PIC 9 VALUE 0.

000400 PROCEDURE DIVISION.                                              00040006
000600     DISPLAY "HELLO WORLD1"
           DISPLAY "HELLO WORLD2"
           DISPLAY "HELLO WORLD3", TEST-VAR
           IF TEST-VAR EQUAL 1
              DISPLAY "TEST-VAR1 HELLO WORLD4"

           MOVE 2 TO TEST-VAR
           DISPLAY "TEST-VAR NOW: ", TEST-VAR

           IF TEST-VAR EQUAL 2 
               DISPLAY "TEST-VAR2 HELLO WORLD5"
                   
000700     STOP RUN.    

If I forget my END-IF and I do not have a period after HELLO WORLD4 then everything else after that code is considered a one IF statement.

It is a bad code and maybe this is not the problem of the Cobol LSP. But it would be a great help if this can be prevented. Just my 2 cents...

[venkatzhub]

@jelly - The syntax check should be on the basis of what compiler would complain. What you are talking about is bad or unitended coding, which is different from syntax checking.

[temanbrcom]

Partially implemented, more semantic checks to come