NetTalk Central

Author Topic: More lookup field corruption in NT7.12  (Read 2601 times)

Rob Kolanko

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
    • View Profile
More lookup field corruption in NT7.12
« on: June 27, 2013, 09:23:51 AM »
My upgrade to NT7.12 has one remaining problem and it is major one. I have multiple fields on a form that use the same pop-up browse look-up to select a number value (a program generated record ID). This number is not shown to the user, the user select based on the description for each record ID of the look up table. Likewise on the main form the selected record description is displayed. Standard Stuff. Now, the filter for the lookup table is changed based on the field on the main form that the user requests a look-up.  Also the record description field shown to the user will change based on the language of the user. This was all working with embed code added back in early NT6. In NT7.12 the pop-up works but the selected record is not returned and other weird stuff is occurring. I did some tests on the new lookup and noticed a bug that I would like to see fixed before I start reworking my code. I modified the web1 example to include two fields that use the same lookup table. After you do a lookup for a value for one mailbox record,  and then edit another mailbox record does not contain record id values for the Alias field the lookup field are being populated with the previously selected value from the lookup table even if the lookup was done on a different lookup field. When the same app is compiled with NT7.06, the lookup fields remain blank as they should. Hopefully I can get this problem fixed before 7.13.

Rob Kolanko

[attachment deleted by admin]

Bruce

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11250
    • View Profile
Re: More lookup field corruption in NT7.12
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2013, 11:06:14 PM »
Hi Rob,

Looks good to go in 7.13.

I also found a bug with form-field "pictures" not being fetched from the dictionary correctly - this affected Time pictures for example, so perhaps that's related to the other form issues you were having.

cheers
Bruce