Date filter wants a time component after upgrade to 6.1 from 4.1?
9 October, 2012
Hi,
A user has raised an issue about how the date filtering is applied in Yellowfin 6.1 when used in user designer reports (via drag and drop).
Previously in 4.1, when user filters a report field on a date, for example 2012-04-10, it returns data.
Now in 6.1, using the same date does not result in any data unless they also specify a time component.
The date filter is applied on a field that also has a time component so I guess that�s why data is returned if you provide it with a more precise date. However, that being said, the issue did not occur in 4.1. Just wondering if you know of a way around this? I attempted to change the filter as per below but that did not help.
Thanks
A user has raised an issue about how the date filtering is applied in Yellowfin 6.1 when used in user designer reports (via drag and drop).
Previously in 4.1, when user filters a report field on a date, for example 2012-04-10, it returns data.
Now in 6.1, using the same date does not result in any data unless they also specify a time component.
The date filter is applied on a field that also has a time component so I guess that�s why data is returned if you provide it with a more precise date. However, that being said, the issue did not occur in 4.1. Just wondering if you know of a way around this? I attempted to change the filter as per below but that did not help.
Thanks
Hi,
I believe the reason you are seeing this is because previously we were using older DB drivers that would not correctly return some data types.
We are now returning the data as it was meant to be returned, though it will require a slight change to your date fields in the view.
I believe the post below outlines what is needed to get the results you were after:
Changing the date format
Please let me know if this doesn't give you what you were after.
Regards,
David
I believe the reason you are seeing this is because previously we were using older DB drivers that would not correctly return some data types.
We are now returning the data as it was meant to be returned, though it will require a slight change to your date fields in the view.
I believe the post below outlines what is needed to get the results you were after:
Changing the date format
Please let me know if this doesn't give you what you were after.
Regards,
David
Thanks David.
The field with the time component is selected from a View, and that is what the report relies on. Changing the data type of the field in the View and formatting it to 'DD-MM-YYYY' did fix the issue. However, the View is shared by many reports and the idea is that we exposed all the data in the View and it's up to the report creator to apply the correct selects and filters for their personal reports.
Just wondering if there's another way of stripping out the time component apart from changing the data type of the field in the View. Would it be possible to make it a calculated field during report building and apply date formatting?
The field with the time component is selected from a View, and that is what the report relies on. Changing the data type of the field in the View and formatting it to 'DD-MM-YYYY' did fix the issue. However, the View is shared by many reports and the idea is that we exposed all the data in the View and it's up to the report creator to apply the correct selects and filters for their personal reports.
Just wondering if there's another way of stripping out the time component apart from changing the data type of the field in the View. Would it be possible to make it a calculated field during report building and apply date formatting?
Hi,
No problems, and glad it resolved your issue.
Unfortunately changing the formatting within the report itself, will only affect the columns, it does not affect the filters.
When modifying filter data types etc.. it will need to be done via the view.
Please let me know if you have any other issues.
Regards,
David
No problems, and glad it resolved your issue.
Unfortunately changing the formatting within the report itself, will only affect the columns, it does not affect the filters.
When modifying filter data types etc.. it will need to be done via the view.
Please let me know if you have any other issues.
Regards,
David
Hi David,
We have another one for you.
There's an option when defining report filter to use 'Equals Date Component' which we thought might strip out the time when comparing the fields. But when we run the report and look at the SQL Statement, it's no different to using 'Equal To'. Is this a possible bug?
We have another one for you.
There's an option when defining report filter to use 'Equals Date Component' which we thought might strip out the time when comparing the fields. But when we run the report and look at the SQL Statement, it's no different to using 'Equal To'. Is this a possible bug?
Hi,
You are correct in that using this filter option (in SQL Server only) should allow you to use a timestamp as a filter, however only use the date component.
At the moment this doesn't see to be working, as it is still using the entire timestamp value. A defect has been raised (TASK ID = 119851) and will be fixed in a future release.
Unfortunately no ETA can be given as yet, as we are drawing very close to the Yellowfin 6.2 release.
In the meantime you can format the field at the view level as date only.
Apologies for the inconvenience.
Regards,
David
You are correct in that using this filter option (in SQL Server only) should allow you to use a timestamp as a filter, however only use the date component.
At the moment this doesn't see to be working, as it is still using the entire timestamp value. A defect has been raised (TASK ID = 119851) and will be fixed in a future release.
Unfortunately no ETA can be given as yet, as we are drawing very close to the Yellowfin 6.2 release.
In the meantime you can format the field at the view level as date only.
Apologies for the inconvenience.
Regards,
David
Thanks David, please post back once the fix has been release