There is a standard table, STACK11, which I use frequently, as it has three key fields. It also has several real fields, but unfortunately has only two integer fields. So I added to this table two new fields, TEST_INTDATA3 and TEST_INTDATA4 and called them INTDATA3 and INTDATA4 respectively.
At some stage, I discovered that I was having problems with this table. The following code should fail the syntax checker but passes:
LINK STACK11 TO :$.S11; ERRMSG 1 WHERE :RETVAL <= 0; INSERT INTO STACK11 (KEY1, KEY2, KEY3, INTDATA1, INTDATA2, INTDATA3) VALUES (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6); UNLINK STACK11;
Not only does it pass the syntax check, but when one selects the fields from the table, TEST_INTDATA3 has the value 6! Putting this simply, Priority has a bug in the syntax checker for procedures which allows it to get confused if the name of a field is the same as the title of a user-added field. The moral of the story is to give the field a different title, such as TEST_INTDATA3 (i.e. the title is the same as the field name).
Incidentally, any attempt to add STACK11.INTDATA3 to a report fails; this is because the name of each field is checked when adding to a report. Any name which is not in the directory is immediately marked as being false. This is not a syntax check.
No comments:
Post a Comment