I am running my SAS program in batch mode through windows command prompt.
Start /WAIT "SAS_job" "C:\Program Files\SASHome\SASFoundation\9.4\sas.exe" -sysin D:\MySAS_Test.sas -nosplash -nologo -noicon
Can I display the SAS output or log on command prompt instead of writing to a file? Or print log as SAS program is running to track progress.
I think this is possible in Unix, but I'm not so sure about Windows.
You can write to STDOUT in Unix as mentioned in the documentation. But I don't see any such similar thing in Windows.
The most similar thing is unnamed pipes, which lets you interact with the console - but it's unclear if this is potentially helpful for you or not.
Unfortunately, I suspect SAS is generally not considering Windows a server type environment, and mostly supporting it to allow for desktop use; while it does support Windows servers certainly, most SAS server usage is Linux/Unix.
Your better bet is probably to go in the direction of another program that reads from the log file already produced and writes it out to the console, something analagous to tail in Unix. Or as mentioned in comments open the log in a text editor (you can even 'push' this from SAS if you have option xcmd enabled) and let it auto-refresh periodically.
One common use case in fact is to use, for example, UltraEdit to edit your SAS programs; it can even run them in batch directly, and then retrieve the log in that program.
Related
I have a SAS program I would like to schedule, so we don't have to run it manually.
In the program we call an excecutable (reg.exe), like this:
X CALL "K:\reg.exe";
The executable opens a standard windows save-dialog and all we need to do is press save, which will save an xml-file. The save-dialog already opens in the correct directory.
What I would like is to somehow pass the instruction on, using code, to "press save", so the program can move on and work with the saved xml-file.
Is this possible somehow?
Thanks for your help!
Thomas:
There are numerous Windows utilities for scripted control of an interactive program. For example: AutoIt (my favorite), MouseRobot and AutoHotKey to name a few.
The statement
options xmin noxwait noxsync;
will cause the external program to run, not wait for the command session to exit, and not wait for the command to complete.
If your SAS programs needs to wait for the side effects of the scripting use of reg.exe to occur before occurring, use:
options xmin noxwait xsync;
These settings affect other operating system interfacing features, such as:
X command
CALL SYSTEM routine
%SYSEXEC statement
The use of your reg.exe might require your login to have admin rights.
The SYSTASK statement can also run external commands.
If you find that you are unable to run external commands, it is probably because the system setting NOXCMD is active. This setting is on by default in SAS server environments.
I have a scheduled SAS program in Windows, e.g.
sas.exe -nosplash -icon -sysin "myprogram.sas"
This process will hang if there's an "Out of Resources" error (e.g. no disk space), prompting for user input (Retry, Cancel, etc.). As it's a batch job, there is no user to give that input.
Is there a SAS system option which prevents the prompt for user input so it can be dealt with in the code itself?
How about -noterminal?
Extract from documentation:
If NOTERMINAL is specified, dialog boxes are not displayed.
Trying using the option
-batch
Since you are running in batch mode, also consider using the option
-errorabend
The best option is
-get_more_resources ;)
If the program is the cause to the resource error you have another question to ask!
I have to write a program that intercepts data from terminal and i have to parse it. After processing when the data, i have to parse it before it goes to stdout.
I can't use tee or commands like prog > file 2>&1 as the program is going to be interactive.
For example :
If the user types ls in the terminal i have to parse it then it should go operating system and then when I get the result after processing I ll have to again parse it before it's displayed in the terminal.
I did my research and I think I can achieve it through pseudo terminal interfaces ( pty ).
Please let me know if there is a better way to achieve it.
I am using cpp and bash and the platform is *nix.
Update:
I can also use libexpect from expect.
I am not sure what do you mean here - you mean interactive program as "working in another terminal communicating with user" or even displaying GUI?
How does it specify the terminal? It is probably important what is program layout here (which program starts which).
If your application uses GUI to communicate with user, then I would simply do it this way:
start bash with sdtin and stdout attached to pipes,
your program reads & writes to it's end's of those pipes, parses data, and reads/writes on it's own stdin&stdout - so it appears on it's terminal.
If you mean controlling different terminal than your application's, it gets though since system generally does not expect program operating on multiple terminals. I don't think it's possible to filter communication between terminal and already working application attached to it. Starting another process spawning another terminal might be an option - to have basically two terminals working in sync. But then you will have to synchronize both processes by some other means (named pipes, network connection or some other IPC).
If you provide more detail on your program I might provide more directed help.
PS Don't tell me that you are writing some terminal keylogger ')
EDIT:
Your program is probably GUI based then - what i would recommend would be something similar to answer linked by banuj.
Best option will probably be to create three pipes, then fork, and in child process assign corresponding ends of pipes to stdin, stdout and stderr. Then child process should exec into shell - probably bash, although I am not sure if other shells would sound better if read out loud ;) Main process will be able to read/write other ends of mentioned pipes, parsing both inputs and outputs to bash and programs it runs.
You could also exec directly to commands user specifies, but that forces you to take over tedious job of a shell - managing current directory, environment variables, job control and so on.
Using above method might however cause some trouble - some programs (usually in security related contexts - eg. su(do) asking for password) will try to bypass stdin/stdout anyway and read directly from terminal device. I am not sure what can you do in such case - programing your own terminal emulator would be an option, but I don't know if you want to go this deep into system programming for this.
If you want some code snippet's, if you don't know how to do above, just ask ;)
My application is a GUI app that has helpful (though optional) information through the terminal (via cout).
In Windows I either have a console appear (by compiling as a console app, or allocating it dynamically) or I don't.
My intention is to make use of the console IF it is being run from the console, but ignore the console completely if it was not. (Essentially what happens in Linux and OS X).
I do not wish to redirect to a file (and in the case of using cin, this is not a viable solution anyway).
Is there a way to attach a GUI app in Windows to the console it is run from, if and only if it is run from a console?
and in the case of using cin, this is not a viable solution anyway
This is the killer detail in your question. It is simple on paper, just first call AttachConsole(ATTACH_PARENT_PROCESS) to try to attach to an existing console. That will fail when your program got started from a GUI program like Explorer or a desktop shortcut. So if it returns FALSE then call AllocConsole() to create your own console.
Using cin is a problem however. The command processor pays attention to your EXE and checks if it is console mode app or a GUI app. It will detect a GUI app in your case and then doesn't wait for the process to complete. It displays the prompt again and waits for input. You will then also wait for input but you'll lose, the command processor got there first. Your output is also intermingled with the command prompt, the easy problem to solve.
There's a simple workaround for that, your user should start your program with start /wait yourapp to tell the command processor to wait for the process to complete. Problem is: nobody ever uses that. And the user will not realize what happens when they type input, intending it to go into your program but it is actually interpreted by the command processor. Producing a mystifying error message or formatting the hard drive.
Only two good ways to solve this unsolvable problem. Either build your program as a console mode app and call FreeConsole() when you find out you want to display a GUI. Or always call AllocConsole(). These are not great alternatives. The first approach is the one used by the Java JVM on Windows. One of the oldest bugs filed against the JVM and driving Java programmers completely batty from the flashing console window.
The third alternative is the only decent one, and the one you don't want, create another EXE that will always use the console. Like Java does, javaw.exe vs java.exe.
A trick is possible, you can rename that file from "yourapp2.exe" to "yourapp.com". It will be picked first when the user types "yourapp" at the command line prompt, a desktop shortcut can still point to "yourapp.exe". Visual Studio uses this trick, devenv.com vs devenv.exe.
You can check CONSOLE_SCREEN_BUFFER_INFO (via GetConsoleScreenBufferInfo) on startup to determine if you've been run from within an existing console. If the buffer's position is 0,0, you were run from outside of the console. For details, see this Microsoft Knowledgebase Article which describes the process.
In order for this to work, you need to compile your application as a console application (using /SUBSYSTEM:CONSOLE), and then detach yourself from the console if the application started a new console (buffer at 0,0). This will cause the program to properly "attach" to the calling console when launched from a command line.
As others have pointed out you have to create a console app and a window app. So, you'd end up with console.exe and app.exe. To make it less obvious at the command-line, you can take advantage of the PATHEXT trick like devenv does. cmd.exe treats a file as a command if its extension is in the PATHEXT environment variable. COM is there by default so you could rename console.exe as app.com, allowing the command app to start the console app attached to the current console.
Note: Of course, a console app can show a GUI if desired.
The difference in the build between app.com and app.exe depends on your build system but it could just be the one attribute that sets the output type. With msbuild (for .vcxproj files), it's just a matter of another build configuration.
you can create an application in console that get a line using argc and prints it;
////
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
//here print argv....using cout or printf
}
save the file as console.exe in the folder of your app.
now in your app if you want to see any line in console you can call the command
system("console.exe this is the line i want to print and see in console");
In C/C++ how can my programs determine if there is a desktop (system or remote) or not?
My project has three separate programs running (now) in separate gnome-terminals. It is launched by the last line of .profile, so it starts whether I am at the system desktop (gnome) or remotely connecting by VPN/telnet or VPN/remote-desktop. My machine is 250 miles away at a test site, so I frequently login remotely to make changes and have to restart the program.
I'd like my program to be able to detect that it is launched from a desktop environment or from a telnet session. Preferably, I want them to continue running after the remote connection is broken.
Obviously, I need to make my programs into daemons so they will persist after I close the connection. But if I start them in a terminal on a desktop environment, where I can actually have three terminals open, I'd like to watch their progress messages. And if I disconnect the remote desktop, I'd like the daemons to detect this and turn off printing (to the now killed terms) but keep on running in normal (silent) daemon mode. Best of all, the programs could recheck for a desktop occasionally and resume printing by opening new terminals.
Is this possible? Any coding suggestions?
Thanks in advance.
You can use the isatty function. Detect if stdin is a terminal or pipe?
#include <stdio.h>
#include <io.h>
//...
if (isatty(fileno(stdin)))
printf( "stdin is a terminaln" );
else
printf( "stdin is a file or a pipen");
You can find more information at http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/chemnet/use/info/libc/libc_12.html
Some more code: http://pastebin.com/S3Lr9tik
The traditional solution for this problem is an option in the command
line. Such programs will typically demonize themselves unless given a
special debug option telling them not to.
Another solution would be to use a shell script to start the program as
a demon, via the nohup command (and redirecting standard input and
output to /dev/null).
As for determining whether your managing terminal is local or not, it
could be difficult; both X and telnet use virtual terminals, so if
you're running under X, you may not be able to distinguish between a
telnet session and a local xterm window. Still, it might be worth
trying... Under Linux, /proc/<procid>/fd/0 is a symbolic link to the
device connected to standard in (fd 0): using something like readlink,
you should be able to determine the actual name. Or fstat will give
you the major and minor numbers of the device. Given these, you might
be able to determine which is which. If your local terminal is not
under X, but a real terminal, it will definitely have a different minor
number than a pseudo-terminal. For xterms, it's possible that the minor
numbers of the pseudo-terminals fall in different ranges, or even that
there are distinct sets of pseudo-terminals for remote links and for X;
you'll probably have to experiment some, and there might be no working
solution. (For starters, to tty at each terminal, and see what it
says. I don't have local access to a Linux machine to check, but I seem
to remember that on Solaris, X terminals had names like /dev/ttyxx; my
remote terminals on Linux here are /dev/pts/xx. (Where xx is a
number in each case.)