HCL Domino Ideas Portal
Welcome to the #dominoforever Product Ideas Forum! The place where you can submit product ideas and enhancement request. We encourage you to participate by voting on, commenting on, and creating new ideas. All new ideas will be evaluated by HCL Product Management & Engineering teams, and the next steps will be communicated. While not all submitted ideas will be executed upon, community feedback will play a key role in influencing which ideas are and when they will be implemented.
For more information and upcoming events around #dominoforever, please visit our Destination Domino Page
I have raised ticket CS0388078 and posted on the forum - https://support.hcltechsw.com/community?id=community_question&sys_id=008742d71b8ead90a67e9759bc4bcb64 to see if I can better understand this issue and apply a data fix.
Moving this to the designer category.
11.0.1FP3 + https://www.assono.de/en/blog/fulltextsearchdifferentfieldtypes
Adding more information at the request of John Curtis
https://twitter.com/john_d_curtis_/status/1351672385984987139
The specific use case that we struggle with is date fields. We routinely stamp workflow related dates on documents e.g.status_100_dt = 20/1/2021
Sometimes we need to set these dates to null if a document is reverted to the previous stage in the workflow. We would do this by setting status_100_dt = ""
The problem is that if we make a new copy or replica of the application it will generate a new UNK table.
In doing so the document where status_100_dt = "" may be used and then the UNK permanently flags this field as a text field FOR ALL INSTANCES.
This means that the field status_100_dt can no longer be used as a date field in Full Text searches. As the UNK table is built based on NoteID and the NoteID varies between repicas / copies the UNK table will also vary between servers / replicas and copies
It is worth noting that this behaviour can mean that an application with a scripted FT search element may work well on one server and on another identical server it does not because the code throws an error when a "text" field is used with "date" field syntax.
status_100_dt > today works on server A and on server B throws an Unexpected Error
Fixing this is very difficult. The data must be fixed and then the http task dropped ( our experience ) and then the application compacted.
It is also very difficult to detect the problem in the first place, it would be great if we could see and alter the UNK table.
VOLT introduced a FT search in version 1.0.2 - I'm seeing this issue with a VOLT application however here we create a numeric, currency or date field and they are all seen as TEXT. Cant search for values between, less than or greater than.
SPR #CSAO9BFB84 is present for this issue.
We see this too but no, we have not yet created a ticket, Sean Cull
Have you reported this behavior in a PMR ? if so can you provide the #?