Interesting, there is a discrepancy ....at least on the .def files. I'll compare the XMLs when I'm on a larger display.
On 2 May 2017 at 15:58, Dave Barber <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi LJ - I'll try that with the form exports - but interestingly, I've > found one copy on a server with history and the data in that field changed > after the migration to 9.1 - on 7.6.04 it was just a regular time stamp in > a text field, after the upgrade it became a UNIX date integer stored in a > text field. > > On 2 May 2017 at 15:43, LJ LongWing <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ** >> Dave, maybe a copy of logs of the workflow or something...maybe a copy on >> a server that's not working, but working in a copy of the form...screen >> shots of the workflow in question...but if it's a default...there is no >> workflow.... >> >> try this....export two copies of the form...one that's working, the other >> that's not, from the same server...export both in XML format, compare and >> contrast the properties of that field, and the form in general...see if you >> can find some difference... >> >> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Dave Barber <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> ** >>> All, >>> >>> We have a form, used as part of a notifications system, it has a 255 >>> character field with a default value as $TIMESTAMP$. So in theory it >>> should store a value 02/05/2017 08:13:40 (UK/GMT date format) >>> >>> We've recently gone through a series of upgrades, from Remedy 7.6.04 (on >>> Solaris) to 9.1.02 (RHL). All of our old test environments bar one have >>> gone through an upgrade from 7.6.04 to 9.1.02 - and we have a range of >>> dev/test environments that have always been on 9.1.02, with a copy of the >>> database from one of the older environments. >>> >>> "Bar one" is an important point - the only remaining 7.6.04 system is >>> happily working as expected. Every other system is storing the date in >>> this field in UNIX format (ie. 1493712820). >>> >>> I cannot figure out why this is happening - I've made a copy of the >>> form, it behaves as expected. I've created a new form and set $TIMESTAMP$ >>> - works as expected. But on this one form it isn't .... some strange >>> form/field corruption? >>> >>> Any suggestions as to a way forward with this? >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Dave >>> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ >> >> >> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
