Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, that didn't work. I believe that is for fields that are updated via a trigger or other db activity that aren't in the object when being saved. This field IS in the object being saved, however something about the fact that the method call to set it was in an observer is causing the value in the object to remain old even though the new value is persisted to the db.
-Ryan Stephen Moretti wrote: > > > 2008/11/13 Ryan Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > > Even though the data in the object does not reflect the db values > right > after a save, the object is not dirty and it is persisted. So > something > is off. Again this only happens when values are updated from an > observer. Let me know if I need to clarify anything. Thoughts? > > > Having just discovered the property.... > > Do you have a refresh-update="true" on your UpdateAt property in the > definition file? If not, does adding it help at all. > > Probably way off base, but seeing as I was just reading the docs on > refresh/ignore-insert/update I thought I'd mention it. > > Stephen > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transfer-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
