JeremyAnson
3 years agoQrew Cadet
Unexpected behaviour with report filtering
We've noticed some unexpected behaviour with report filters this week and wondered if others had experienced the same (perhaps as a result of changes made in the last QB update).
When adding filters to a report to find data quality issues (i.e. hoping that the report returned no records), we found that while the text above the report reported '0 records', the screen populated after a short pause with all of the records in the table. When we downloaded the report, there were no records in the csv file, only field headings. This has happened more than once with different reports. In this case the count of records was correct and the screen display incorrect.
Earlier today we added filters to a report that had listed '347 records' when unfiltered. The report correctly listed '81 records' after we applied the filters. When we removed the filters the report loaded with '347 records' in the text above the report, but this quickly changed to '81 records'. Downloading the data confirmed that there were 347 records in the report, so in this case the screen display was correct and the count of records was incorrect.
All more than a little disconcerting!
------------------------------
Jeremy Anson
------------------------------
When adding filters to a report to find data quality issues (i.e. hoping that the report returned no records), we found that while the text above the report reported '0 records', the screen populated after a short pause with all of the records in the table. When we downloaded the report, there were no records in the csv file, only field headings. This has happened more than once with different reports. In this case the count of records was correct and the screen display incorrect.
Earlier today we added filters to a report that had listed '347 records' when unfiltered. The report correctly listed '81 records' after we applied the filters. When we removed the filters the report loaded with '347 records' in the text above the report, but this quickly changed to '81 records'. Downloading the data confirmed that there were 347 records in the report, so in this case the screen display was correct and the count of records was incorrect.
All more than a little disconcerting!
------------------------------
Jeremy Anson
------------------------------