We started seeing this while were moving from 8104 to 8207....

[Martin Yergeau]

Instead of -DEFAULT use -DEFAULTH

[Jess Hines]

In my experience that causes parameters to not be sent. And I cant DEFAULTH the parameters I dont want to see, because I dont even know where theyre declared, but its not in my procedure.

[Manoj Chaurasia]

Just as an FYI They may be set in the server profile or in a fex that is referenced in the server profile (edasprof.prf)

[Jess Hines]

We started seeing this while were moving from 8104 to 8207.

I have an HTML page, and have added some procedures, which have some parameters set with the -default command.

However, there are many many more parameters that show up for the report, that arent even in the procedure, and I cant figure out where theyre coming from. I dont want them to show up here (they didnt in 8104). Not sure if this is a configuration issue, or where to look first to solve.

 

requests-datasources.png326592 13.9 KB

[Jess Hines]

I found that our procedures on the Reporting Server (that are being -INCLUDE from the MRE fex), are INCLUDE-ing another fex that has all these defaulted parameters Im seeing. However, nothing in that changed as far as the fexes or code from 8104 to 8207 (which were trying to migrate to), and we didnt see all these parameters in the old version.

Is there any some setting to limit how many -INCLUDES deep parameters will be surfaced from, or regarding including parameters from the Reporting server to MRE

For context, the way this works is we have an HTML launch page that runs a stub procedure in MRE, which, depending on the value of a parameter, runs 1 of 2 procedures on the Reporting server (via -MRNOEDIT -INCLUDE), and that procedure on the reporting server does a -INCLUDE of a default params procedure. In 8104, the params from that default params file wasnt showing up in the HTML page, and now in 8207 they are.

I can change the default params file on the Reporting Server to use DEFAULTH but Im more curious to know what changed such that I need to do that now.

[Alban Hertroys]

It seems to me that IBI fixed a bug where those parameters were not listed previously. It would be a problem if your (planned) logic depended on those parameters, while the other way around is merely an inconvenience, as you are witnessing.

Theres probably something in the release notes on this regard.

[Jess Hines]

Maybe so. That would be interesting to know. Unfortunately I dont have time to browse the 20+ patch releases between 8104 and 8207.

[Manoj Chaurasia]

Jess

-INCLUDES are just a way to have common code in one place and reused. It just becomes part of the fex that uses it at run time as if it were coded as part of it. Im sorry but there is no way to do what you were hoping for