Value function has changed it's behavior

[Anonymous]

Hi,

Documentation says when a number string is in a not appropriate forrmat Value function will return Blank().

I have a line

Value(AddQuestionColumnsNumber_TextInput.Text)

Where Input field has Format=Number

Yesterday or maybe on Friday result of this line evaluation was Blank() if text field is blank. Now it results in a error.

Also

Value("abcde")

results in a error agains docs.

As a temporary solution for my post I've made it like this

Value(Coalesce(AddQuestionColumnsNumber_TextInput.Text,"0"))

Is it an intended behavior change that should be soon reflected in docs? If not - this is definitely a bug. It's nonsense to go through all of my apps and change all such lines. When we can expect it fixed?

Btw error is not shown in app checker, it just fail my formula silently.

[RandyHayes]

@Anonymous 

Can you explain where you are seeing this error?  

When I tested your scenario, all performed as expected.  Value("abcde") resulted in Blank.  Value of a TextInput resulted in the value entered and blank when either empty or not numeric.

[Anonymous]

@RandyHayes 
I see it right in a formula bar, see attached pics.

[RandyHayes]

@Anonymous 

Oh, you're looking at the message in the expression evaluation.  I would say ignore it!  Those are wrong a great amount of the time.  Especially with dates, but also with expressions that evaluate to blank or other conditions that the expression evaluator just can't seem to work out.  There have been a lot of posts about that part of the formula bar not showing proper results, but all works fine.

[Anonymous]

Well, from today this error fails the formula if I ignore it. I have the following very simplified snippet:

With({vTest:Value("abcde")},
    "Text")

As you see in a picture it does not return "Text" to my label because With evaulation ended up with a error. Same when I do UpdateContext. 

[RandyHayes]

@Anonymous 

Ah yes...that does indeed fail.  Interesting observation.

Now you say that this worked before properly...I too often use constructs similar to this, so I will have to check through some prior apps to see if it is now failing.

I would suggest putting in a support ticket on it in the meantime.

[Anonymous]

Yep, it was working last week for sure, I have it in an old app of mine which was working fine before.

You're right, If it will not get fixed by tomorrow I will proceed with creating a support ticket.

Meanwhile it makes sense for everyone to check their in-production apps for same issue. Most nasty thing here is that the formula fails silently so it's hard to catch the error in big apps.

[RandyHayes]

@Anonymous 

Agreed.  Very nasty issue.

So, the current version released was done so the early part of last week.  Shouldn't be so much an issue with published apps as they would be published with their version...and if it is not this version, then it should still function.

[RandyHayes]

@Anonymous 

Actually, I went back several versions in a test app and the problem still existed.  I took a look at some of the prior apps that I used similar type of checking and found that I had already used Coalesce statements in those places.

So, not sure that it hasn't been an issue for a while.  But I will say that I agree it should not cause the entire With to fail.  I'd still report it in a service ticket.  Yes, there is a "workaround", but it should not have to be needed.

[Anonymous · Accepted solution]

Seems like this issue has been resolved: