Did I miss something with the info move function?

[Orlando Alonzo]

So I've decided to start populating our contacts list. I figured I'll start by importing the drivers from the personal auto app into the contacts.

I had the receptionist use the info move function to import the drivers from the drivers tab of the personal auto application into the contacts list. What I discovered is that the year portion on the acord app is a only 2 digits, and when they converted into the contacts list anyone with a birth year starting with 00 (for 2000) converted to 1900's.

Did I miss something? I thought the info move utility was straight forward.

I was told by Applied that this a known issue and we will have to correct these dates manually on the contacts list. Wished they would put some kind warning on the KB docs about things like this. 

[Jim Jensen]

I think it only happens to a paricular window of dates, like maybe 1900-1930? Whatever the years are where Applied uses "A0", "A1" for 2000, 2001, etc.

[Orlando Alonzo]

I kinda've figured. Just frustrating that issues like this still exists.

[Jim Jensen]

Yeah  well, issues will always persist when you only 1/2 fix something - just like when we hit 2010 and auto ID cards were printing B0 instead of 10 in the dates. "Oops, guess we only put in a 9 year fix in some areas."

[brinkerdana]

Hmmm.  Y2k was 11 years ago and they haven't fixed the Info Move thing. 

[Lance Bateman]

Anyone that didn't go all the way to 8 digit date storage (including Microsoft) didn't fix y2k, they just put it off again.

Hmmm.  Y2k was 11 years ago and they haven't fixed the Info Move thing. 

[Orlando Alonzo]

I agree why only fix it halfway.  I had a great time trying to explain this to my receptionist, who told me that I thought there was no Y2K problem.

[Jim Jensen]

I agree why only fix it halfway.  I had a great time trying to explain this to my receptionist, who told me that I thought there was no Y2K problem.

Apparently they hoped to have us all off TAM by 2010 since they also forgot to update code to translate B0 correctly for 2010 in some places. Or those programmers involved planned not to be working at Applied by 2010 and wouldn't have to revisit the issue themselves.

[Orlando Alonzo]

You know, there might be truth in that.

I agree why only fix it halfway.  I had a great time trying to explain this to my receptionist, who told me that I thought there was no Y2K problem.

Apparently they hoped to have us all off TAM by 2010 since they also forgot to update code to translate B0 correctly for 2010 in some places. Or those programmers involved planned not to be working at Applied by 2010 and wouldn't have to revisit the issue themselves.