Home Dashboard Directory Help
Search

sp_describe_undeclared_parameters Case Sensitive Despite Collation by Chris_Downing


Status: 

Resolved
 as Won't Fix Help for as Won't Fix


4
0
Sign in
to vote
Type: Bug
ID: 795002
Opened: 7/25/2013 9:28:12 AM
Access Restriction: Public
0
Workaround(s)
view
1
User(s) can reproduce this bug

Description

We recently upgraded one of our databases to 2012 Compatibility Mode, and are now getting an error from sp_describe_undeclared_parameters when running an SSIS package that one of the parameters for a stored procedure in the upgraded database isn't valid. We found that system sproc from a trace, and it looks like the OLEDB Command task we're using to execute the stored procedure hits that to validate the command (treating it as dynamic SQL).

We've tracked it down to the parameter in the command in the package not having the same case as the parameter in the stored procedure. This obviously wasn't an issue prior to 2012, and we've been able to reproduce it with other stored procedures and parameters.

This is easily reproduced for us with the following queries:

create proc test @test1 varchar(128) as
select * from sys.objects where [name] = @test1

exec sp_describe_undeclared_parameters N'exec test @test1 = @P1' --runs successfully
exec sp_describe_undeclared_parameters N'exec test @Test1 = @P1' --invalid parameter

exec test @test1 = 'test' --Runs successfully
exec test @Test1 = 'test' --Runs successfully


Both the server and database have collations of SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS.
Details
Sign in to post a comment.
Posted by Microsoft on 11/5/2013 at 1:31 PM
Hello Chris,
Thank you for submitting this feedback. After carefully evaluating all of the bugs in our pipeline, we are closing this bug and we will revisit in the future. Thanks again for reporting the product issue and continued support in improving our product.

Sincerely,
Ajay Jagannathan
Senior Program Manager
Posted by Chris_Downing on 7/29/2013 at 12:09 PM
Since this was marked as "Won't Fix", just curious if it's because this is working as intended, or if it's for another reason... Thanks!
Sign in to post a workaround.