The significance of the date 2009-01-01

I discovered this feature when working on D365FO for Retail. Store transactions were synced back into D365 with a datetime field which had the value 1753-01-01 (the mindate of the datatype on SQL server).

The mindate in D365 is 1900-01-01 which is greater than 1753-01-01 so you might expect that D365 would return 1900-01-01 instead of 1753-01-01. However that is not the case. 

When the transaction was read the date returned is 2009-01-01 instead of the true value 1753-01-01. 

This was discovered when looking into problems with the field RetailTransactionTable.ReceiptDateRequested  which looks to be related to KB 4058850

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

D365FO Data management change tracking enable/disable not working

Displaying a value from a array field in EP

Table array field iteration