We recently applied Hot Fix 9 to our 1.1.2 development install. Immediately after, all our reports started prompting for all un-provided parameters.
All of our reports have been developed the same way: A HTML screen created using Composer which calls a simple fex, passing many &variables (some supplied and some not) to a stored procedure.
For example a report may offer many selections (up to 80 in some cases!); Order Number/s, Customer Number/s, Product Number/s, Order Date, Invoice Date etc etc. The stored procedure would then build an SQL statement based on which parameters had been provided.
Our reports designed in this way have been in use for over 3 years and have been run in total more than 500k times, across multiple WebQuery environments at 1.1.1 and 1.1.2. They have not once prompted for parameters, unless we have made a mistake in the HTML design and had an Unresolved Parameter in the 'Parameters' tab within Composer. The reports only started prompting immediately after applying Hot Fix 9.
We opened a PMR with IBM (93917,001,866) who initially said this was 'expected behaviour', yet this certainly had not been the case as we have been heavy users of Web Query for a long time, from 1.1.1 to 1.1.2 and this had never happened.
The final response from IBI was:
"This is working as design and is the behaviour as IBI expects going forward. Programming made a change in behaviour which has caused this. It used to be that if you did not enter a value, IBI sent up a blank, and IBI changed the behaviour to not assume blanks are wanted now. This current behaviour will remain unchanged. You need to change your reports to include this behaviour"
Therefore it now seems we have no choice but to edit 200+ reports, adding code to supply a blank default for every parameter, eg;
-DEFAULT &ABC= '';
-DEFAULT &DEF= '';
-DEFAULT &GHI= '';
I wanted to raise this to see if any others have experienced this problem or if others out there have Stored Procedures that are designed to accept blank variables and in which case to forewarn you of the issue.
I would also like to here IBM's view on this.