Hi, At April 24, 2017, 12:39 PM, Jiří Činčura wrote:
>> But, what could cause it not to recognize those fields properly? >> Because when I look in the database's system tables, the >> RDB$FIELD_TYPE and RDB$FIELD_LENGTH both have values in them, one >> would be VARCHAR(132) and the others would be CHAR(1). > Don't know. If you can confirm it's really those fields, put it to > tracker and I'll look at it. Sorry for the late reply, I'm under a time crunch to complete a project. Once I have the time(hopefully within a month), I'll try to reproduce it with a database that contains one table with those kind of computed fields. There was another table that had one computed field, and that one was simpler in construct, and the Code First from Database wizard didn't have any problems with that table. So, it must be something with that one table in particular and the complexities of its computed fields. As soon, as I have a reproducible test case, I'll enter an issue in the tracker. -- Best regards, Daniel Rail Senior Software Developer ACCRA Solutions Inc. (www.accra.ca) ACCRA Med Software Inc. (www.filopto.com) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Firebird-net-provider mailing list Firebird-net-provider@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-net-provider
