Could this be a bug in FilePro? (Was--Weird output with associated field)

Wed Jan 30 08:56:25 PST 2008

On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:04:25PM -0500, Boaz Bezborodko wrote:
> Joe Chasan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 09:27:25PM -0500, Boaz Bezborodko wrote:
> >   
> >> OK, I found out that the problem occurs when I use indexing to go 
> >> through the sort/selection processing to speed up the operation and that 
> >> it only occurs when this particular record is the first to appear in the 
> >> selection set in the index. If I change the selection set to start on a 
> >> day before, or I change the date field in the record so that it is a day 
> >> later, (IOW if the record is no longer the first to be selected) then 
> >> both associated fields appear correctly on the report. (BTW, if I added 
> >> more data to the other associated fields they also wouldn't show.) But 
> >> anytime it is the first record to be selected then only the first 
> >> associated field appears. This is true for 3 other records that are 
> >> identical to the first, but for 3 other months. In all cases the records 
> >> appear as the first in the indexed selection set.
> >>
> >> I also tried this with other records that have more than one entry in 
> >> associated fields that would be the first in the indexed selection set. 
> >> In all cases only the first associated entry is displayed and all others 
> >> are missing.
> >>
> >> Either I am doing something wrong (And I can't see where I am--though 
> >> I'm not as experienced as the rest of you) or there is a fundamental bug 
> >> in the way FP is working. (I'm using version 5.6.06D9.)
> >>
> >> I execute rreport with a -io ('o' index is on the invoice date field 
> >> '20'). I then ask for the beginning date (dummy field 'ba') and ending 
> >> field ('bb'). I then use this to jump to the first record:
> >>
> >> 32 ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >> b If: b
> >> Then: lookup - k=ba i=O -bg b
> >>
> >> The selection processing then looks like this:
> >>
> >> 33 ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >> b If: b
> >> Then: ai(10,mdyy/,g)="12/31/2050" b
> >> 34 ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >> b If: '--------------------------------------------------------- b
> >> Then: b
> >> 35 ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >> SELECT b If: 20 gt bb b
> >> Then: lookup - k=ai i=O -bg b
> >> 36 ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >> b If: ag ne "" and ag ne 17 b
> >> Then: END b
> >> 37 ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >> b If: MID(30,"1","13") eq "Keyoffs check" 'Keyoff checks should not be>
> >> Then: END b
> >> 38 ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >> b If: 20 ge ba and 20 le bb and aa="" and 19 ne "AD" b
> >> Then: SELECT b
> >>
> >> This selects every record with '20' within 'ba' and 'b'. Even the record 
> >> I'm missing gets selected for the first associated field in the record. 
> >> But the second associated field never shows up even though other records 
> >> with something in the second associated field get printed.
> >>
> >> The Sort for the output file looks like this.
> >>
> >> bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb Field list bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
> >> b 1- VENDOR NAME (RANDOM 11- CHECK NUMBER (ALPHA 21- due date b
> >> b 2- address 1 (r 12- VOUCHER NUMBER 22- address line 3 b
> >> b 3- address 2 (r 13- discount base 23- VENDOR NAME (RECENT b
> >> b 4- city 14- terms (days) 24- date units received b
> >> b 5- state 15- discount (days) 25- sales tax code b
> >> b 6- zip 16- discount percent (% 26- taxable amount b
> >> b 7- code for memo 17- VENDOR NUMBER 27- remarks b
> >> b 8- CHECK NUMBER (NUMER 18- invoice amount 28- date posted b
> >> b 9- date paid 19- invoice or debit me 29- customer ship-to (f b
> >> b 10- CHECK AMOUNT 20- invoice date 30- INVOICE NUMBER b
> >> bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
> >> =A2
> >> bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb Sort definition bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
> >> b b
> >> b Sort Field: 61 b A1)b 1 b 28 b 9 b b b b b
> >> ---b Length: 0b 5b 30b 8b 8b b b b b
> >> b Descending: b b b b b b b b b
> >> b Subtotal Field: fb xb xb b b b b b b
> >> b b
> >> le:bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbPress ESC To Record, Ctrl-C To CancelbETD
> >>
> >> Press F10 for help
> >>
> >> And the output looks like this:
> >>
> >> !@td
> >> !@tm P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L
> >> *ba - *bb
> >>
> >> V E N D O R INVOICE NUMBER DATE REC'D DATE POSTED DATE PAID AMOUNT R E M 
> >> A R K S
> >> ===============================================================================
> >> D A T A L I N E S
> >> *1 *30 *24 *28 *ae*9 *A2 *ad
> >> _____________________________T O T A L L I N E 
> >> S______________________________
> >> SUBTOTAL BY VENDOR NAME (RANDOM) INDEX E
> >>
> >> SUBTOTAL BY A1) GL NUMBER 1
> >>
> >> *A1 *ab
> >>
> >> As far as I can tell everything looks kosher. What am I missing?
> >>
> >> Boaz
> >>     
> >
> > I did not follow this entire thread but my guess is you can't combine
> > 'lookup -' from a non-associated field built index with associated field 
> > sort.  what you are doing in effect then is changing sort mid-report - the 
> > report starts out sorted by index O in your case (the '-i0' on command line 
> > and 'lookup -'), and AFTER it selects first record, you are then asking 
> > filePro to resort all by associated field - i'd guess the first record that 
> > gets selected then would have unexpected results on which, if any, of its 
> > associated fields would get seen/selected (because when it went into 
> > that record it was not doing an associated field sort).  your results
> > seem to back this up, as if @af="1" - e.g. on that record they were
> > not associated.
> >
> > --
> > -Joe Chasan-                           Magnatech Business Systems, Inc.
> > joe - at - magnatechonline -dot- com   Hicksville, NY - USA
> > http://www.MagnatechOnline.com         Tel.(516) 931-4444/Fax.(516) 931-1264
> >
> >   
> This shouldn't be a problem.  The sort/selection processing is supposed 
> to go through the records in the order of the index and add selections 
> based on the sort parameters.  I'm not switching it one way of the 
> other, merely selecting based on a non-associated field.

thats not how i see it.  if my guess/suspicions are correct, then from my 
perspective, when you go through a file of 100 records based on normal 
sort, you see 100 records that *report has to go through - when you go 
through a file of 100 records with report sorted by associated field of 
which there are 5 occurences, *report sees 500 records - so if you change 
sort from regular to associated field mid-way, the first record that is 
selected when this happens will only get seen once, and only the ones 
after get seen 5 times (in this example).

--
-Joe Chasan-                           Magnatech Business Systems, Inc.
joe - at - magnatechonline -dot- com   Hicksville, NY - USA
http://www.MagnatechOnline.com         Tel.(516) 931-4444/Fax.(516) 931-1264