Weird report run

[Boaz Bezborodko]

>Message: 2
>Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:31:18 -0400
>From: "Bruce Easton" <bruce at stn.com>
>Subject: RE: Weird report run
>To: <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
>Message-ID: <BBEALIBBDKJHFKICDGELIEGOCHAA.bruce at stn.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
>Is index scan turned on and do you have an index built on that one-byte flag
>field that's in the selection set?  Then that index could be corrupted.
>
>Bruce
>
>Bruce Easton
>STN, Inc.
>
>  
>
The flag is not indexed so that can't be the problem.

>Joe Chasan wrote on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 3:06 PM
>  
>
>>i specifically avoid giving users access for selection sets and
>>sort screens
>>for reports simply to avoid times like this when one wonders what happened
>>and the system provides no controls or logs.
>>
>>those were just my first guesses.  there are certainly a bunch more
>>possibilities (corrupt index, faulty programming, multi-user access
>>issues, etc) that are possible but i don't think we know enough about
>>your system to get any deeper.
>>
>>-joe
>>
>>On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 02:38:04PM -0400, Boaz Bezborodko wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>In this case the selection set is based on a 1 character wide flag-type
>>>field.  The sort and form-breaks were done on the Vendor name in the
>>>sort table for the form.  So while the selection might have been played
>>>with the sort and printout should still have broken out OK.  Except that
>>>that's not what happened.
>>>
>>>The user assures me that they used the system to select only the one
>>>invoice, but the system selected a bunch or other, seemingly random,
>>>invoices and put them on the same form even as it generated new check
>>>records for them.
>>>
>>>As I said, generating the checks would not have been strange if it
>>>wasn't for the user swearing that they weren't selected (and I believe
>>>him).  But to select them erroneously, properly process them, and then
>>>put them on the same form without the form-breaks just seems
>>>      
>>>
>>very strange.
>>    
>>
>>>Boaz
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>  
>


>Message: 3
>Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:45:30 -0400
>From: "Michael J. Mc Avoy Sr." <mcavoy at raex.com>
>Subject: Re: Weird report run
>To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
>Message-ID: <45086DEA.1060309 at raex.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
>
>Are you sure you are removing the tag "Y" after processing the checks. 
> Either the tag is not being deleted or all records were selected.  You 
>have two options, all or a few of the invoices.  Sounds like you got 
>more than you wanted.
>
>Just my guess.
>
>Mike McAvoy
>
>  
>
That's one of the weird things.  It didn't select everything as most of
the open invoices were not selected.  The flags also seem to be properly
handled, at least after the fact.

A few months ago I ran a report that put in an errant 2 or 3 records,
but when I ran it again they were gone.  But that was during a test of
some new code.  Now that it occurred in some production code that it has
been used for quite some time I'm a little concerned.

Boaz