RESOLVED: Error was discovered in a Link Spec to one of several link tables.  
An old spec that had been corrected in an earlier coy failed to carry forward 
with the new versions to the client.  It was correct on my machine but failed 
to override the link spec already on their machine..

BEST CASE SCENARIO:  An early copy of the MDB file was sent to the client 
unknowingly having the incorrect link.  After the client received the program, 
several issues were discovered abd addressed on my machine.  At the time, the 
link spec not updating on the client machine was still uknown.  A new copy of 
the MDB file was sent to the client, which was then copied to the same machine. 
 Apparently the Link Spec on the client's machine failed to correct itself even 
after shipping the program by compressed attachment as we  as shipped 
uncompressed on a CD to the client.  Manually recreating the link table with 
the proper link spec resolved the problem.


--- In [email protected], "Garrett O'Brien" <hrisconsult...@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Sent a client a MDB copy of the MS Access program built for them.  The
> database has a refresh process to update a set of core tables from
> another system through controlled processes.  When we both run the
> program with the same data used to process the refresh (he on his and me
> on mine), both our copies populate the core tables properly.  Clearing
> of the data from non-core tables works just as fine as well.  The
> problem comes with the population of the non-core tables  - my copy does
> just fine on my machine but his copy will populate but misses a bunch of
> records...
> 
> I have compared both databases at the programming as well as at the data
> level using a comparison program and the programming is the same in both
> programs...  just the non-core tables had any differences...
> 
> Has anyone had a similar experience?  Could something in his machine be
> causing the MSA program to 'burp' or 'skip' through the process when it
> is running???...
> 
> Garrett
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


Reply via email to