It works on 5.2.16 as a result from (side effect of) patch 5_20230 (from the 5.2.16 release notes).
There is one other (known) issue involving multivalues that is expected to be addressed on 5.2.17 (in 3 weeks). Dan On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Russell Bowes < [email protected]> wrote: > I'm in the process of installing 5.2.16, on the client system and I'll try > the same test on the upgraded version when its up and running. > > I've also read the release notes for this new version, but I dont see any > patch documented for this particular issue. Do you know if this was a > reported bug that has been accidentally corrected, or was this a known bug > that has now been addressed, but not included in the release notes for the > newer version ? I'm just wondering that if it was a targeted fix, then > other possible mv manipulation issues may have been considered and looked > into at the time, else I guess I should look into these myself just in case > they exist and haven't been accidentally fixed as well... > > Russell. > > > On Saturday, 14 July 2012 00:40:23 UTC+10, Russell Bowes wrote: > >> One of our clients has pointed out some inconsistent behaviour when >> dealing with multivalues in dicts in their 5.2 site. >> >> They have a record with two attributes. >> >> Attr# 1 = "2" @VM "1" @VM "1" >> Attr# 2 = "1" @VM "1" >> >> In their old 3.4.10 site, if they had a dict item which looked this... >> >> 001 A >> 002 0 >> 003 1-2 >> 004 >> 005 >> 006 >> 007 >> 008 A;1-2 >> 009 R >> 010 10 >> >> When they listed their record with this dict item, it returned... >> >> "1" @VM "0" @VM "1" >> >> which is what they expected. >> >> When they did the same subtraction in a basic program, it again gave the >> same result, which was great, AND consistent... >> >> They tried the same test on their new 5.2.15 site, but the results were >> not as expected. >> >> When they listed their record with their dict item, it returned.... >> >> "1" @VM "0" (h'mm, only two values returned ?) >> >> However, when performing the same test in a basic program, it worked as >> expected. >> >> At first glance, it looks like a bug to me, but I'll dig further and look >> at some other string manipulations to see how they fare. >> >> >> > -- > IMPORTANT: T24/Globus posts are no longer accepted on this forum. > > To post, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/jBASE?hl=en > -- IMPORTANT: T24/Globus posts are no longer accepted on this forum. To post, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jBASE?hl=en
