Re: Issue with dates in SQL -- errors under some conditions, but not others.

The SQL has an OPTION for date presentation, called DATFMT. While that is established for the UDF, there is also that specification for the SQL /session/ in which the UDF is invoked. When invoked from the STRSQL, the F13=Services feature allows setting the presentation to a four-digit-year format such as *ISO. The default for this setting in STRSQL is *JOB. The date formats supported in a /job/ do not support any 4-digit-year formats. The year 0001 in a two-digit-year format is ambiguous, and thus results in a mapping error.

In the ODBC\JDBC define the connections with the *ISO for date formatting, much like needs to be done in the STRSQL feature.

Instead of a session defining the formatting for the date values, the native RLA honors the Date Format definition for the column. A DATE column in SQL is always *ISO.

Regards, Chuck

On 25 Feb 2013 17:25, James H. H. Lampert wrote:

We have a UDF used by a number of SQL VIEWs, to convert a numeric
date field to an actual SQL date, defined thusly:

create function <<SNIP>> return date('00010101000000'); <<SNIP>

If we look at the VIEWs that use this in QuestView (i.e., via native
record-level access), any zeroed-out fields show up as January 1st
of the year 0001, as designed.

But if we look at it in STRSQL, those same zeroed-out dates come back
as a field of plus-signs.

And when it's used under other circumstances, apparently in
connection with BIRT reports, we get exceptions in the QZDASOINIT
jobs.

Can somebody please shed some light here? Why would the behavior
differ, depending on the circumstances? <<SNIP>>