Date Problem

[kirsch59]

When I access a table's date field from the chui Progress editor it displays fine. When I access the table's date field from Webspeed the value is incorrect. Here's some samples.

Good Date Bad Date
Progress Editor Webspeed
01/05/12 3/5/1999
01/05/12 4/21/1999
1/7/2000 01/05/12

Most of the date fields work like a charm.

Thanks for your time.

 

[kirsch59]

The version of Progress and Webspeed is 10.1C03.

 

[Stefan]

I see nothing good or bad in your examples, can you elaborate.

 

[Cringer]

I think the problem is that those are allegedly the same dates, but that they display as completely different dates in Editor vs Webspeed.

 

[TomBascom]

You need to show the code...

 

[kirsch59]

Here's a snippet of the WebSpeed code:

run noties('sxstagecd_1').

procedure noties.
def input param search-str as char no-undo.
for each oeeh where cono = cono and keyindex contains search-str no-lock:
MESSAGE "order: " oeeh.orderno oeeh.ordersuf " promise dt: " oeeh.promisedt.
...

The output in the server log is as follows:
order: 1000588 0 promise dt: 10/29/01
order: 1000584 0 promise dt: 03/02/01

*************************************************************************************************
Here's the code from the CHUI Progress Editor:

find first oeeh where cono = 1 and orderno = 1000588 no-lock no-error.
disp orderno ordersuf promisedt.

output:
Order # Order Suffix Promised
─────── ──────────── ────────
1000588 00 01/05/12

find first oeeh where cono = 1 and orderno = 1000584 no-lock no-error.
disp orderno ordersuf promisedt.

Output:
Order # Order Suffix Promised
─────── ──────────── ────────
1000584 00 01/06/12


*******************************************************************************************************

When I run the CHUI code from the Webspeed Scripting lab I get the same results as the Progress Editor. Bizarre.

 

[TomBascom]

You have completely different query criteria:

for each oeeh where cono = cono and keyindex contains search-str no-lock:

vs.

find first oeeh where cono = 1 and orderno = 1000588 no-lock no-error.

Why wouldn't you expect different results?

 

[kirsch59]

I'm accessing the same order record - oeeh.orderno = 1000588. I would expect the oeeh.promisedt value to be the same for order# 1000588 whether I'm using WebSpeed or the Progress Editor.

 

[Stefan]

I'm accessing the same order record - oeeh.orderno = 1000588. I would expect the oeeh.promisedt value to be the same for order# 1000588 whether I'm using WebSpeed or the Progress Editor.

I have no expectation whatsoever since I do not know what the unique index is on oeeh. Apparently you also have no idea, which is why you are using FIND FIRST instead of FIND.

 

[kirsch59]

When I fully quality oeeh.cono = cono it works.

Thanks.

 

[lee.bourne]

You need to run exactly the same code on both otherwise it is not a proper test. By using FIND FIRST rather than FIND you don't eliminate the possibility that there are multiple records that match your criteria (each with a different date). How about hardcoding the criteria for the purposes of this test? Try running this query on both CHUI and Webspeed:

for each oeeh where cono = 1 and orderno = 1000588 no-lock:
disp orderno ordersuf promisedt.
end.

Lee