Have you thought about creating a field validation rule say field1 <= 9.99?
Laurie On 8 August 2016 at 10:47, Paul Newton <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all > > It's probably best if I explain this by example. Let's say we have a > field in VFP with Width 4 and Decimal 2. In a browse the maximum value that > we can enter is 9.99 (as would be expected). BUT by means of a REPLACE we > could end up with values of 99.9, 999 or even 9999 without getting numeric > overflow. > > Because of this, and because we want to write away the VFP data to SQL > Server we have been setting the equivalent SQL Server field (or more > strictly column) to a Precision of 6 and Scale 2. Similarly a VFP field of > Width 8 and Decimal 3 would have an equivalent SQL Server column of > Precision 11 and Scale 3. > > This isn't really very satisfactory and I was wondering how other people > deal with this. Ideally our code should not allow a replace with values > (in the first example) greater than 9.99. Of course VFP does complain if > we try to replace the value with 99999 (Numeric overflow. Data was lost) > > We would have preferred it if VFP were to complain in ALL cases where the > replacement value is greater than 9.99 but, alas, that is not the case. > > Any thoughts, comments or suggestions would be very welcome. > > Paul Newton > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/camvtr9ezist7mzkrrt0sgygmeu2klp8y1gjpuuf8ss_c-mu...@mail.gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
