<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
In this case the selection set is based on a 1 character wide flag-type
field. The sort and form-breaks were done on the Vendor name in the
sort table for the form. So while the selection might have been played
with the sort and printout should still have broken out OK. Except
that that's not what happened. <br>
<br>
The user assures me that they used the system to select only the one
invoice, but the system selected a bunch or other, seemingly random,
invoices and put them on the same form even as it generated new check
records for them.<br>
<br>
As I said, generating the checks would not have been strange if it
wasn't for the user swearing that they weren't selected (and I believe
him). But to select them erroneously, properly process them, and then
put them on the same form without the form-breaks just seems very
strange.<br>
<br>
Boaz<br>
<br>
Joe Chasan wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid20060913140041.A22241@magnatechonline.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 01:49:32PM -0400, Boaz Bezborodko wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Knowing the user I would seriously doubt that either of these were
played with. In any case it wouldn't explain the other weird behavior
of why the output didn't break into separate forms.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
yes, it could.
take the below example.
vendor number field is of length 6. you sort/subtotal by that field
number.
report selects data for vendor #100001, 100002, 100003.
if sort is of length 6, these will appear in different subtotal groupings
and/or pages depending on how you have set this up - all well and good.
lets say, however,that the sort length is of a number less than 6 - for
the above 3 data items, a length 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 will all put these
items in the same grouping as the first X (where X is 0/1/2/3/4/5 per above)
number of characters of those fields are the same.
-joe
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Joe Chasan wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">if the user has access to modify either the selection set or the sort
criteria, i'd look at those as possible causes.
-joe
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 01:31:13PM -0400, Boaz Bezborodko wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Through a selection set. (Looking for a "Y" in a particular field.)
GCC Consulting wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
From:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:filepro-list-bounces+gccconsulting=comcast.net@lists.celestial">filepro-list-bounces+gccconsulting=comcast.net@lists.celestial</a>
.com
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:filepro-list-bounces+gccconsulting=comcast.net@lists.c">mailto:filepro-list-bounces+gccconsulting=comcast.net@lists.c</a>
elestial.com] On Behalf Of Boaz Bezborodko
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 1:11 PM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:filepro-list@lists.celestial.com">filepro-list@lists.celestial.com</a>
Subject: Weird report run
A user ran a report that had a very weird result and I need
help trying to figure out why. This is a report that has
been running fine for a long time.
The report picks out invoices to pay and then generates
checks for them. Each invoice is a line on the report and
the sort order is by vendor with a new form being generated
for each new vendor. When it does so it generates a new
check number and creates a new record for this check in the
checks file.
The weird thing on this run was that on this run they were
only generating one check, but a bunch o invoices that should
not have been selected, from different vendors, were chosen
and they were printed all on the first form for the original
check. They should not have been selected, but they were.
They should not have shown up on the first form as part of
the one check that was supposed to have run, but they did.
And they should not have generated their own checks, but they
did. That last part was the one part that was consistent
with their being printed even though they shouldn't have
because they didn't conform to the selection criteria.
I've reviewed the code and can't find any reason why this
should have happened. Any suggestions as to why the errant
selection and sort behavior?
Note: I'm using FP 4.8 on Windows.
Boaz
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">What is the criteria that you are using to select invoice to pay?
Is this through -v processing or a selection set?
Richard Kreiss
GCC Consulting
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Filepro-list mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Filepro-list@lists.celestial.com">Filepro-list@lists.celestial.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list">http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
-Joe Chasan- Magnatech Business Systems, Inc.
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:joe@magnatechonline.com">joe@magnatechonline.com</a> Hicksville, NY - USA
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.MagnatechOnline.com">http://www.MagnatechOnline.com</a> Tel.(516) 931-4444/Fax.(516) 931-1264
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
-Joe Chasan- Magnatech Business Systems, Inc.
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:joe@magnatechonline.com">joe@magnatechonline.com</a> Hicksville, NY - USA
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.MagnatechOnline.com">http://www.MagnatechOnline.com</a> Tel.(516) 931-4444/Fax.(516) 931-1264
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>