It possibly can. But it’s not needed. What exactly are you trying to accomplish? — Tom
One business user complained that he doesnt have access to STRSQL.. My question is do we need to grant access to STRSQL command object also along with the limit capabilities as *PARTIAL or *YES?
One business user complained that he doesnt have access to STRSQL.
Then it is very likely that the user should not have access to STRSQL. If the user is a limited-capability user, there should be no access to STRSQL. If the user really needs STRSQL, then the user probably shouldn’t be a limited-capability user.
My question is do we need to grant access to STRSQL command object also along with the limit capabilities as *PARTIAL or *YES?
That depends on why there is no access to STRSQL. Is it because of limited-capability or authority to the command? Is the command set as ALWLMTUSR(*YES)?
Regardless, you can alway put STRSQL into a CL program and let the user run the program, perhaps through a command that is set as ALWLMTUSR(*YES) and authorized through an authorization list that only has that user listed.
But I’d probably just let the user run STRQM rather than STRSQL. Much safer and much more control is available.
The only reason they would need to have access to STRSQL is to maintain the data. If they want to extract data the take Tom’s advice and have them use STRQM.
…access to STRSQL is to maintain the data.
It needs to be mentioned that the same maintenance that is available in STRSQL can be done through STRQM. However, a fundamental difference is that it can be restricted in QM where it’s not in STRSQL.
only certain users can have strsql. imagine if your user owe the bank 1k and suddenly he strsql and he owe 0. so nope he should not have strsql. in my previous place, to use strsql, you need to have support documents and also approval from different parties before strsql can be used