p2p.wrox.com Forums

Need to download code?

View our list of code downloads.


  Return to Index  

access thread: A big bug! - Access Project Filter by Form


Message #1 by "Tom Abel" <tabel@u...> on Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:44:22
I think it has been established now, Filter by Form does not work in 
Access Project for date ranges.  For example, in Access 2000, Filter by 
Form works fine with ">", or "<" for some date value (a very important, 
I'd say critical feature for dates, people always want "all records since 
1998", for instance), but Access 2000 as a Project (adp), does not work at 
all for date ranges.  What's funny here is that Microsoft seems to be 
dodging this bug entirely.  All examples in books and help screens simply 
do not include "date" examples.  Very clever!  Ignore it, pretend it does 
not exist, and maybe nobody will notice.

Of course they could fix this.  They know exactly how to do it, they need 
to translate the date value '>1/1/99' in to the SQL equivalent.  They do 
it every time you create a view.  If you type the date as above, Access 
converts the date into the required "CONVERT" statement, you can view it 
in the SQL.  So why haven't they done that yet for the Filter by Form 
feature (and Server Filter by Form is the same)!  Crazy.

My question for the list would be, is this fixed in Access 2002??  Or does 
anyone know more of the story here?  I want to use this Filter by Form 
feature.  The users love it, and I grab the filter that Access generates 
and use it in the call to open a report with the same filter.  It's a 
great combination that works well together.

Help needed!  Thanks, and if Microsoft is out there, what's the deal?!
Message #2 by "Gregory Serrano" <SerranoG@m...> on Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:59:39
Tom,

<< Of course they could fix this.  They know exactly how to do it, they 
need to translate the date value '>1/1/99' in to the SQL equivalent. >>

What happens if you include pound signs before and after the date?  Will 
it work then?  That is, for example:

  >= #1/1/02# And <= #6/17/02#

Greg
Message #3 by "Tom Abel" <tabel@u...> on Mon, 17 Jun 2002 19:53:45
Nope, tried several varieties of this.  None worked.


> Tom,

> << Of course they could fix this.  They know exactly how to do it, they 
n> eed to translate the date value '>1/1/99' in to the SQL equivalent. >>

> What happens if you include pound signs before and after the date?  Will 
i> t work then?  That is, for example:

>   >= #1/1/02# And <= #6/17/02#

> Greg

  Return to Index