Source-derived document; reported behaviour, inference and evidence gaps are identified in the text.
Return to: 08. Integration Catalogue — topic detail
Customer forms
In this document
Interface: Customer forms
Several .per source files describe customer screens against the stores7 database and customer table. The customer form displays customer number, first name, last name, company, two address lines, city, state, ZIP code, and telephone. Its field mappings connect f000 through f008 and a0 to customer_num, fname, lname, company, address1, address2, city, state, zipcode, and phone. E0007
The custform form labels the owner name as two fields: f001 maps to fname and f002 to lname. The customer number field f000 maps to customer_num and is marked NOENTRY. The state field a0 uses the UPSHIFT attribute, and the telephone field f008 uses the picture mask “###-###-#### XXXXX”. E0007
The cust.per source defines a screen record named s_cust with four repeated rows. Each row contains f001, f002, and f003, mapped respectively to customer.fname, customer.lname, and customer.company. The screen labels those fields First Name, Last Name, and Company. E0007
The customer.per source declares the screen record sc_cust using the range from customer.fname through customer.phone. The binary .frm artifacts for cust, custcur, custform, and customer contain NUL bytes and were not semantically analyzed. The .per declarations therefore provide layout evidence, but the supplied material does not establish that the binary forms match those declarations. E0007 E0008
The order workflow opens orderform, statehelp references state_list, and stock selection references stock_sel. The corresponding runtime artifacts were not listed in the supplied range, so their presence, loading behavior, and consistency remain unresolved. A missing artifact in this evidence is not proof that the form is globally absent. E0008
Harten documentation of the Informix 4GL and Java source repository, from the retained 17 October 2026 export. The exact upstream revision analysed is not established. Source findings do not establish runtime behaviour or equivalence between the implementations.
Evidence identifiers are retained for traceability. The underlying analysis records are not included in this public edition; credential values are redacted. About this case study.