jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) (10/11/88)
If DBDATE is set to any value specifying a 2-digit year, when the 4gl construct statement is called to input a series of fields, one of which is a date type, the string returned will be truncated after the date field; this means that selection criteria for fields preceding the date field will work correctly, but criteria for fields following the date field will be ignored. Using a DBDATE specification with a 4 digit year works correctly. jw
ambrose@iris.ucdavis.edu (Paul Ambrose) (10/14/88)
In article <492@pan.UUCP> jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes: > >If DBDATE is set to any value specifying a 2-digit year, when the 4gl >construct statement is called to input a series of fields, one of which >is a date type, the string returned will be truncated after the date >field; this means that selection criteria for fields preceding the date >field will work correctly, but criteria for fields following the date >field will be ignored. I reported this bug to Informix in July of 1987!!! I have been getting the same run-around from Informix for OVER A YEAR!! Each month its been - "Yeah, uh, well, "QA" is still looking at the new release, it should be out next month." - SINCE JULY OF LAST YEAR!!! Informix, PLEASE don't respond to this posting by telling me the problem has been fixed - BULLSHIT!! A bug isn't fixed until it is fixed for the ENTIRE port list. The last date I received for the Xenix release was mid-November. Paul Ambrose ambrose@iris.ucdavis.edu
aland@infmx.UUCP (Dr. Scump) (10/20/88)
In article <3174@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, ambrose@iris.ucdavis.edu (Paul Ambrose) writes: > In article <492@pan.UUCP> jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes: > > > >If DBDATE is set to any value specifying a 2-digit year, when the 4gl > >construct statement is called to input a series of fields, one of which > >is a date type, the string returned will be truncated after the date > >field; this means that selection criteria for fields preceding the date > >field will work correctly, but criteria for fields following the date > >field will be ignored. This is bug #2291, fixed in the 1.10.03 UNIX release and (at the latest) the 1.10.06 DOS release. > I reported this bug to Informix in July of 1987!!! > I have been getting the same run-around from Informix for OVER A YEAR!! > Each month its been - "Yeah, uh, well, "QA" is still looking at the new > release, it should be out next month." - SINCE JULY OF LAST YEAR!!! This problem was first reported in UNIX version 1.10.00. It was fixed in the next UNIX release (1.10.03), which had its first ports shipping June 1. Somebody should have been able to verify for you that it was fixed in .03 anytime after that, since it was a generic problem. > Informix, PLEASE don't respond to this posting by telling me the > problem has been fixed - BULLSHIT!! A bug isn't fixed until it is > fixed for the ENTIRE port list. The last date I received for the > Xenix release was mid-November. "The ENTIRE port list"... hmmmm... that's a tall order when you support over 200 ports. I understand that the fix doesn't help *you* any if you are running in only one environment and that one happens to fall later in the porting priority, but that doesn't mean it "isn't fixed" in general. You don't mention what XENIX you are using. The port for SCO XENIX V 386 rel 2.2.3 is *shipping now*. The port for SCO XENIX V 286 rel 2.2.3 is in progress. The port for IBM XENIX 2.? would follow the SCO 286 port. > Paul Ambrose > ambrose@iris.ucdavis.edu -- Alan S. Denney | Informix Software, Inc. | {pyramid|uunet}!infmx!aland Disclaimer: These opinions are mine alone. If I am caught or killed, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of my actions. Santos' 4th Law: "Anything worth fighting for is worth fighting *dirty* for"