06-27-2016 04:29 PM - edited 06-27-2016 04:30 PM
I'm not sure this is the right forum for this issue but I thought I'd bring it to the attention of the SAS folks. BTW, several people in my company were able to replicate the problem.
lf you double click on a file containing the word DISPATCH in its name, SAS will open the file without any trouble. However if after this you double click on any other file, SAS won't open it. I even created a file called dispatch_test.sas that includes only data a;run; . I closed SAS, reopened the dispatch-named file by double clicking (no issues), then double clicked on another file (SAS doesn't open the new file).
This could be a P.C. (Windows) bug, but we have several jobs running in Unix, which have the word dispatch in their name. I just wanted to make sure whatever the problem may be, it doesn't affect the unix jobs.
07-01-2016 05:47 PM
Is this in Base SAS? Where are you clicking on the file the name: a file open dialog box, the SAS explorer window, an other file management program such as Windows Explorer or somewhere else? What file type(s) are affected? You mention .SAS but what about dispatch.txt, dispatch.csv, dispatch (no extension) or others?
Do you see something like "data step running" in the SAS window margin when you double click on the second file? If the first file hasn't finished executing then I would not expect to see the second file open yet.
Which SAS modules do you have installed?
07-06-2016 12:27 PM
Hi again and sorry for the delayed message due to the long weekend.
Thank you for your feedback ballardw.
1) Yes I'm running Base SAS.
2) No dialogue box opens. In fact nothing at all happens.
3) Only the SAS files are affected (I just tested using a file called dispatch.txt and got the expected response).
4) No data step runs and as I mentioned before, nothing really happens. I've got Base, Stat, Graph, ETS, Connect, Access.
What puzled everyone was the fact that this issue was replicable by different people in different departments, plus the IT Tech support, independently of each other.
As long as our UNIX jobs aren't affected, this isn't a big issue (it was just peculiar, which was the reson I mentioned it here).