Re: Date search bug?

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

1998


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 17705
interpreted = N
texte = Hi everyone,While I still recommend using the date formatting suggestions I made available a few days ago, there may be some of you who really don't want to mess around with a change-over like that ... so here's some CRITICAL information that may help to make your existing date range searches work properly:The following exchange occurred between myself and Grant after I sent him some files that demonstrated the date range search bug I discovered:>>Have you or anyone tracked down the date bug with those files I sent you a >>couple days ago? > >It appears to be the comma between the dates in the range. I removed the >comma and got much better-looking results. Sorry about the delay and the >misinformation.Basically, what this means is that the HTML docs are wrong -- you should NOT use a comma to separate the two values in a date range search. Instead, you should try using a blank space (or possibly a plus sign) to separate the two date values.I still don't know whether or not the earliest date value in a date range search needs to be listed first -- or if the order makes no difference. But putting the earliest date value first has eliminated problems reported with some earlier versions of WebCatalog, so it's probably still a good idea to continue that practice, just to be on the safe side ... :)Sincerely, Ken Grome 808-737-6499 WebDNA Solutions mailto:ken@webdna.net http://www.webdna.net Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: Date search bug? (Kenneth Grome 1998)
Hi everyone,While I still recommend using the date formatting suggestions I made available a few days ago, there may be some of you who really don't want to mess around with a change-over like that ... so here's some CRITICAL information that may help to make your existing date range searches work properly:The following exchange occurred between myself and Grant after I sent him some files that demonstrated the date range search bug I discovered:>>Have you or anyone tracked down the date bug with those files I sent you a >>couple days ago? > >It appears to be the comma between the dates in the range. I removed the >comma and got much better-looking results. Sorry about the delay and the >misinformation.Basically, what this means is that the HTML docs are wrong -- you should NOT use a comma to separate the two values in a date range search. Instead, you should try using a blank space (or possibly a plus sign) to separate the two date values.I still don't know whether or not the earliest date value in a date range search needs to be listed first -- or if the order makes no difference. But putting the earliest date value first has eliminated problems reported with some earlier versions of WebCatalog, so it's probably still a good idea to continue that practice, just to be on the safe side ... :)Sincerely, Ken Grome 808-737-6499 WebDNA Solutions mailto:ken@webdna.net http://www.webdna.net Kenneth Grome

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

WebCat2 beta 11 - new prefs ... (1997) Problems getting parameters passed into email. (1997) Search in 2 or more catalogs (1997) Bugs still *not* fixed as promised ... (2000) Bug in Mac webcatalog3_0_5b11 (1999) Webcatalog 4.02b5 Mac OS X headers (2000) [WebDNA] Virtual server (2011) WCS Newbie question (1997) Finding max value for a field (1997) Hosting WebDNA (2006) multi-paragraph fields (1997) Resume Catalog ? (1997) Request Time Out (1997) MacFinder -- a new WebDNA web site (1998) math a various prices (1997) New Web Site Developers Database (1996) Updating a database once per day - An example (1998) No spaces allowed in text variable names ... ? (2002) unable to launch acgi in WebCat (1997) calculating ShipCost depending on weight (1997)