96096, Feb 29 bug 
Author Message
 96096, Feb 29 bug


Quote:
> Okay guys, I know everyone argued that this wasn't a problem at the
> conference, but this bug is still open and it implies that no version of
> Informix has the Feb 29 problem fixed for ESQLC.  I called the support
> line again today and got the same response.  Can someone correct me if
> I'm wrong by telling me which version of the engine/esqlc has this fixed?

PTS bug number B96096 was opened on 18th June 1998, which is very recent
indeed.  The bug is reported in the QA test suite, so it isn't clear what
the problem really is, especially as the description is, to be polite about
it, minimal --

    Y2000 QA_DIFF -D OPTION FAILED TO WORK WHEN DATE IS 02/29/2000 BECAUSE
    IT IS TREATED AS INVALID DATE.  SDK201

There is no further information in the database for this bug, so I hope
someone else can decipher it, because that doesn't tell me very much.

The canonical bug in this category is B60150:

     EVEN WITH DBCENTURY SET "02/29/00" IS TREATED AS AN INVALID DATE.

B60150 is fixed in some versions of the product, including 7.23.UC9,
7.24.UC4, 7.30, and ClientSDK 2.01 (aka ESQL/C 9.14.UC1).  Interestingly,
it doesn't seem to have been a problem on NT.  I also just verified that
ClientSDK 2.01 is fixed, using the code:

#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
     long d;
     int i = rdefmtdate(&d, "dd/mm/yy", "29/02/00");
     printf("i = %d, d = %d\n", i, d);
     return 0;

Quote:
}

With DBCENTURY set to C or F or P, this generates error -1204 (invalid
year) under 7.24.UC1, and -1206 (invalid day) with DBCENTURY set to R.  The
results for C and F are wrong (that's the bug), but correct for R and
debatable for P (the date is invalid because 1900 was not a leap year, but
invalid year is not the best error to give).

Under ClientSDK 2.01.UC1, it generates -1218 for DBCENTURY set to R or P
(current century or past), and no error for DBCENTURY set to C or F
(closest or future) -- both of which are correct.

So, yes, some versions of Informix products do have a bug in the DBCENTURY
handling.  Some versions of the products have this fixed.  Bug B96096 is
not a good one to track -- B60150 is much better.

If anybody happens to know anything more about the cause of B96096, please
let me know.

Yours,

Guardian of DBD::Informix v0.59 -- http://www.***.com/
Informix IDN for D4GL & Linux -- http://www.***.com/



Wed, 18 Jun 1902 08:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 1 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. 96096, Feb 29 bug

2. Is Informix 7.24.UC5-1 free of Feb 29, 2000 bug (B60150)

3. Possible Feb 29, 2000 Bug?

4. Forms 3 and 29-Feb-2000

5. Problem with 29 Feb 2000!!!

6. FPD2.6 Y2K (LEAPYEAR FEB 29/2000) PROBLEM

7. Is Informix 7.24.UC5-1 free of Feb 29, 2000 bug (Bug no. 60150).

8. BUG: wrong week number for Dec 29, 2003

9. Possible Feb 29, 2000 Bug? No, this one is not !

10. Not able to see Feb. 29 2000 records with FM 3.0

11. FPW26 -- How are people dealing with 29 Feb '00?

12. Ordinal 29 - error


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software