Did QV's default number format change in 12.40 / April 2019?

[jrepucci15]

We are in the process of upgrading from 12.10 SR4 to 12.40 flat and running number format differences (among others).

background: these fields are in Dimensions (not expressions)

in v12.10, a "1" appears as "1" and "0.675496" appears as "0.675496". - this is the desired behavior.

In v12.40 flat, "1" appears as "1.000000" and 0.675496" appears as "0.675496".  This change from dynamic formatting is not good or useful.

I've tried added a "Num() around the dimension but that creates a static format, not the dynamic formatting that we had in v12.10.  =Num(MReceivedQty, '#,###.#') - this forces every entry to have a single decimal point, which is incorrect.

Has anyone else see this and have a fix?

[rwunderlich]

As a debugging exercise, please look up this field in the Document Properties, Number pane and tell us what radio button value is selected, in both the 12.10 and the 12.4 apps. 

-Rob

[jrepucci15]

Hi Rob,

The Number Format Settings = "Mixed" for those variables in both v12.1 & v12.4.  

Survive Reload is selected on both versions as well.

John

[rwunderlich]

Interesting. No ideas, perhaps it's worth checking in with QT Support.

-Rob

[jrepucci15]

Edit:  this was using v12.40 SR1

I ran into another oddity related to this.

In a transform, I saved a table as a qvd, deleted the table, then loaded that qvd.

Prior to the save, the numbers were formatted correctly, but after I loaded the qvd the numbers had the trailing 0's.

My workaround for that was to do the save (for debug / testing purposes only) but no longer delete the table.  That kept the number formats correct.

Rob - I will be working with my support partner to open a case on this.

John

[rwunderlich]

You can use the "Touchless" technique to control the formats from QVD as well. 

https://qlikviewcookbook.com/2016/07/touchless-formatting/

-Rob
http://masterssummit.com
http://qlikviewcookbook.com
http://www.easyqlik.com

[fema3773]

Were you able to find a resolution for this?  We are currently facing the same issue.  Thanks in advance!

[jrepucci15]

No, we did not find a good solution. I ended up playing with the number format in the extracts (wrapping the field in a num() as ..) as necessary.
Not a great solution.