I'd like to set a job variable to a date and use that job variable as a date in the delete files task to delete files older than a specified date. I've tried a few different ways and it keeps failing. Is this possible? Using version 8.5.5.

I'd like to set a job variable to a date and use that job variable as a date in the delete files task to delete files older than a specified date. I've tried a few different ways and it keeps failing. Is this possible? Using version 8.5.5.

You should be able to use the date right away or a user variable, however;
We've done some fixes/improvements to exactly that in 9.0.0, so the Date field will show you if you're using the correct format or not (plus it fixes user variable)

I suggest you download our 9.0.0 beta and try it in a test environment and see if you get it working there. It won't be very long now until we release the live version of 9.0.0.

We estimate releasing it in about 1-2 weeks if everything goes as planned.

You can find the beta here. Remember it's not backward-compatible , so if you install it on your current server, make sure to take a backup folder of your current installation folder / take backup of all your settings

https://www.visualcron.c....aspx?g=posts&t=9663 

---

In the delete date field I can use a date value: 10-30-2019 or a date variable: {DATENOWADD(Days,-7,yyyy-MM-dd)}
But when I set a job/user variable {USERVAR(file_date_test)} to a date value and use that variable in the date field, VC crashes.
If this is fixed in 9.0.0, then I think I can wait. Just wondering if this is supposed to be working in 8.5.5, then am I doing something wrong?

In the delete date field I can use a date value: 10-30-2019 or a date variable: {DATENOWADD(Days,-7,yyyy-MM-dd)}
But when I set a job/user variable {USERVAR(file_date_test)} to a date value and use that variable in the date field, VC crashes.
If this is fixed in 9.0.0, then I think I can wait. Just wondering if this is supposed to be working in 8.5.5, then am I doing something wrong?

This is something that *should* be fixed in 9.0.0 yes, we would appreciate it if it was possible that you tried it yourself on 9.0.0 to see if it indeed is fixed for you the way you want it or not

---