PDA

View Full Version : Can't Save File 60 required 999 at 9549



Dave &/or Ryan
14-Feb-2005, 01:44 PM
somebody please remind me what this means.....<g>
This has worked under 8 through 9.1. Now suddenly under 10.1 it
breaks. There have probably been DD updates since 9.1 was last
compiled so

This is a bpo that runs through an invoice taking a discount off each
line. Structure is...

invmast(60)
| \
| \
| inventri(210)
| |
| | invoice(200)
| | /
| | /
transac(51)

All buffers have the correct records

transac will update inventri and invoice but has nothing to say to
invmast on this occasion. relationships are a hangover from an old
system

in the files transac and inventri are hard-related to invmast
I have added set-relates to connect transac to the invoice and to
inventri, and to break the transac-invmast relationship (these set
relates are in the outer code, as they have always been, should they
be in the bpo proc to make sure they are active at the critical
time?).

What am I looking for? Mondays aren't my strong point....

Erik Zimmerman
14-Feb-2005, 03:02 PM
Dave &/or Ryan,

I think what is happening is that even though you've canceled the file
relate from transac up to invmast, the transac_DD is still looking for a
valid record in the Invmast_DD when it is saving.

If you are breaking the relate from transac to invmast, I believe you must
also break the DD connection between transac_DD and invmast_DD...

For starters add this to the bottom code of the Transac_DD object in the BPO

send detach_server of (Transac_DD(self)) (InvMast_DD(self))

If the save works then you know that this was the problem.

HTH,

Erik

"Dave &/or Ryan" <it@kirkfreeport.net> wrote in message
news:cam111pqi8eiovqvo7tpobjbpommelke1p@4ax.com...
> somebody please remind me what this means.....<g>
> This has worked under 8 through 9.1. Now suddenly under 10.1 it
> breaks. There have probably been DD updates since 9.1 was last
> compiled so
>
> This is a bpo that runs through an invoice taking a discount off each
> line. Structure is...
>
> invmast(60)
> | \
> | \
> | inventri(210)
> | |
> | | invoice(200)
> | | /
> | | /
> transac(51)
>
> All buffers have the correct records
>
> transac will update inventri and invoice but has nothing to say to
> invmast on this occasion. relationships are a hangover from an old
> system
>
> in the files transac and inventri are hard-related to invmast
> I have added set-relates to connect transac to the invoice and to
> inventri, and to break the transac-invmast relationship (these set
> relates are in the outer code, as they have always been, should they
> be in the bpo proc to make sure they are active at the critical
> time?).
>
> What am I looking for? Mondays aren't my strong point....

Vincent Oorsprong
15-Feb-2005, 02:30 AM
Dave,

The answer is simple, but it is now tuesdays<g>;

When you get this error you have specified file 60 in the required parent
files list in the DD (via dbbldr) and did not add or attach the DDO in you
component (view).

--
Kind Regards,
Vincent Oorsprong
Data Access Europe BV
Lansinkesweg 4
7553 AE Hengelo
The Netherlands
Telephone: +31 (0)74 - 255 56 09
Fax: +31 (0)74 - 250 34 66
http://www.dataaccess.nl

Dave &/or Ryan
15-Feb-2005, 11:52 AM
No it WAS added until I started trying to break that relationship to
get rid of the error. Is there an 'equal and opposite' reason maybe?
Like defined in the DDO's but broken some way in the DD class?

I'm chasing other issues at this moment but I'll hopefully get back to
it in a few hours.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:30:05 +0100, "Vincent Oorsprong"
<vincent@do.reply.at.newsgroup.nl> wrote:

>Dave,
>
>The answer is simple, but it is now tuesdays<g>;
>
>When you get this error you have specified file 60 in the required parent
>files list in the DD (via dbbldr) and did not add or attach the DDO in you
>component (view).

Dave &/or Ryan
15-Feb-2005, 11:53 AM
Good idea, but didn't work. I need to review EVERYTHING that's changed
since 9.1 went live.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:02:33 -0500, "Erik Zimmerman"
<erikz@compadmin.com> wrote:

>Dave &/or Ryan,
>
>I think what is happening is that even though you've canceled the file
>relate from transac up to invmast, the transac_DD is still looking for a
>valid record in the Invmast_DD when it is saving.
>
>If you are breaking the relate from transac to invmast, I believe you must
>also break the DD connection between transac_DD and invmast_DD...
>
>For starters add this to the bottom code of the Transac_DD object in the BPO
>
>send detach_server of (Transac_DD(self)) (InvMast_DD(self))
>
>If the save works then you know that this was the problem.
>
>HTH,
>
>Erik
>
>"Dave &/or Ryan" <it@kirkfreeport.net> wrote in message
>news:cam111pqi8eiovqvo7tpobjbpommelke1p@4ax.com...
>> somebody please remind me what this means.....<g>
>> This has worked under 8 through 9.1. Now suddenly under 10.1 it
>> breaks. There have probably been DD updates since 9.1 was last
>> compiled so
>>
>> This is a bpo that runs through an invoice taking a discount off each
>> line. Structure is...
>>
>> invmast(60)
>> | \
>> | \
>> | inventri(210)
>> | |
>> | | invoice(200)
>> | | /
>> | | /
>> transac(51)
>>
>> All buffers have the correct records
>>
>> transac will update inventri and invoice but has nothing to say to
>> invmast on this occasion. relationships are a hangover from an old
>> system
>>
>> in the files transac and inventri are hard-related to invmast
>> I have added set-relates to connect transac to the invoice and to
>> inventri, and to break the transac-invmast relationship (these set
>> relates are in the outer code, as they have always been, should they
>> be in the bpo proc to make sure they are active at the critical
>> time?).
>>
>> What am I looking for? Mondays aren't my strong point....
>

David Martinko
16-Feb-2005, 09:31 AM
If you are trying to break the relationship in the view only... realize that
it breaks the relationship in the entire program (current session).
To break the relates in the view, you not only disconnect the DD's.. you
have to do a new Set_Relate to kill it entirely.

Set_Relate POHead.Vend_Code to |FN0,0

But then you may find this breaks something else your program.

--
David Martinko
Redeemed Software
248-535-7495
RedeemedSoftware(SHIFT+2)Hotmail(PERIOD)com


"Dave &/or Ryan" <it@kirkfreeport.net> wrote in message
news:n1a411ddnrq1rnnrf2s65oqvalu5c5h1on@4ax.com...
> No it WAS added until I started trying to break that relationship to
> get rid of the error. Is there an 'equal and opposite' reason maybe?
> Like defined in the DDO's but broken some way in the DD class?
>
> I'm chasing other issues at this moment but I'll hopefully get back to
> it in a few hours.
>
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:30:05 +0100, "Vincent Oorsprong"
> <vincent@do.reply.at.newsgroup.nl> wrote:
>
>>Dave,
>>
>>The answer is simple, but it is now tuesdays<g>;
>>
>>When you get this error you have specified file 60 in the required parent
>>files list in the DD (via dbbldr) and did not add or attach the DDO in you
>>component (view).
>

Dave &/or Ryan
16-Feb-2005, 06:59 PM
With only one or two exceptions I use SDI, so the view is (almost) the
program.

I've referred to thris thread in my other post about copy_db, all of
which (except this program) was solved by the use of tranlock.pkg.

I'm thinking now that I've well and truly screwed up the DDs, at least
as far as this .bp is concerned. To get the user happy I'm may dig out
the 4-yr old procedural version while I think it through again.


On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:31:43 -0500, "David Martinko"
<RedeemedSoftware@Hotmail.com> wrote:

>If you are trying to break the relationship in the view only... realize that
>it breaks the relationship in the entire program (current session).
>To break the relates in the view, you not only disconnect the DD's.. you
>have to do a new Set_Relate to kill it entirely.
>
>Set_Relate POHead.Vend_Code to |FN0,0
>
>But then you may find this breaks something else your program.

wila
17-Feb-2005, 07:03 AM
Dave,

Regarding your error 999 i can say that i've seen the same thing
happening after upgrading an application to 10.1
This was all around the end-of-year stress, so while i know that i've
fixed it, i even seem to recall that i fixed it by just setting a few
properties in the DDO, i really have no recollection which properties
i've set, in what view (or webobject) or even which project that it was
that i've seen that particular bug.

Sorry.. it would take me too much time now trying to find the bug (and
solution) again.

Maybe you should do a package search on the vdfx\pkg folder for error
999 to check and see when this happens and then start a debug session?

hth (as in i feel your pain coz i've been there too)
--
Wil

Dave &/or Ryan wrote:
> With only one or two exceptions I use SDI, so the view is (almost) the
> program.
>
> I've referred to thris thread in my other post about copy_db, all of
> which (except this program) was solved by the use of tranlock.pkg.
>
> I'm thinking now that I've well and truly screwed up the DDs, at least
> as far as this .bp is concerned. To get the user happy I'm may dig out
> the 4-yr old procedural version while I think it through again.
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:31:43 -0500, "David Martinko"
> <RedeemedSoftware@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If you are trying to break the relationship in the view only... realize that
>>it breaks the relationship in the entire program (current session).
>>To break the relates in the view, you not only disconnect the DD's.. you
>>have to do a new Set_Relate to kill it entirely.
>>
>>Set_Relate POHead.Vend_Code to |FN0,0
>>
>>But then you may find this breaks something else your program.
>
>

Dave &/or Ryan
17-Feb-2005, 02:39 PM
Thanks All,
The suggestions have all been helpful but I REALLY need to scrap all
relationships and start the whole thing again.

However once I've got the old procedural version installed for the
user I'll keep on...



End-of-year stress? mine's every day <g>



On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:03:24 +0100, Wil van Antwerpen
<info@antwise.com> wrote:

>Dave,
>
>Regarding your error 999 i can say that i've seen the same thing
>happening after upgrading an application to 10.1
>This was all around the end-of-year stress, so while i know that i've
>fixed it, i even seem to recall that i fixed it by just setting a few
>properties in the DDO, i really have no recollection which properties
>i've set, in what view (or webobject) or even which project that it was
>that i've seen that particular bug.
>
>Sorry.. it would take me too much time now trying to find the bug (and
>solution) again.
>
>Maybe you should do a package search on the vdfx\pkg folder for error
>999 to check and see when this happens and then start a debug session?
>
>hth (as in i feel your pain coz i've been there too)

Dave &/or Ryan
21-Feb-2005, 12:42 PM
Took a leaf from somebody else's book....
Created a brand new .bp added all the DDs from scratch and copied my
doprocess into it. Works beautifully <sigh>

Thanks to all





On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:39:37 -0500, Dave &/or Ryan
<it@kirkfreeport.net> wrote:

>Thanks All,
>The suggestions have all been helpful but I REALLY need to scrap all
>relationships and start the whole thing again.
>
>However once I've got the old procedural version installed for the
>user I'll keep on...
>
>
>
>End-of-year stress? mine's every day <g>
>
>
>
>On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:03:24 +0100, Wil van Antwerpen
><info@antwise.com> wrote:
>
>>Dave,
>>
>>Regarding your error 999 i can say that i've seen the same thing
>>happening after upgrading an application to 10.1
>>This was all around the end-of-year stress, so while i know that i've
>>fixed it, i even seem to recall that i fixed it by just setting a few
>>properties in the DDO, i really have no recollection which properties
>>i've set, in what view (or webobject) or even which project that it was
>>that i've seen that particular bug.
>>
>>Sorry.. it would take me too much time now trying to find the bug (and
>>solution) again.
>>
>>Maybe you should do a package search on the vdfx\pkg folder for error
>>999 to check and see when this happens and then start a debug session?
>>
>>hth (as in i feel your pain coz i've been there too)