Hey folks,

 

One of the users of our system has recently started having a problem (and they 
recently switched from our older DOS based system to the newer VFP based system 
- even though the VFP system is still DOS looking with the same color scheme 
and fonts). The problem is that they got a duplicate Purchase Order # and 
previously a duplicated Invoice #. This has happened like 3 or 4 times over the 
past several months. They are getting so desperate and frustrated with our 
system (due to other problems as well - but, this problem is a SERIOUS one - 
and it makes the system look Very Unreliable) - that they are ready to demand 
their money back for the upgrade from the DOS to the "Windows" system - and go 
back to using the DOS system. 

 

I personally looked at the Procedure that generates the Seq Control #'s - and I 
didn't really see anything wrong with it - and its small and should run fast - 
and doesn't seem like it Should be having this problem. But, its happening 
anyway. Of course, we are even considering that it MAY be due to hardware 
problems on the client end. 

 

So - here's the deal. We have a Sequence Control file (SeqCtl.dbf) - with a 
single record that contains 51 different fields. I just took a closer look at 
that file - and some fields are not sequence #'s - but, other info - with about 
½ or more of the field being Sequence #'s. 

 

In the past - another client experienced the problem. And, back then - someone 
here implemented a solution of taking out 1 or a couple of the fields and 
putting them into a Separate DBF file(but, it was done as a Customization for 
that one client). And, this request has now been made for me to do the same 
thing - for this current client - but also to our Base system. They want me to 
pull out the Purchase Order, Sales Order and Invoice numbers - each to a 
separate DBF file. And, that is what I am working on this morning. 

 

But, in the meantime - I was wondering if someone could take a look at the code 
below to see if there is any KNOWN VFP issue in the code that would cause such 
a problem. Any help would be GREAT appreciated.

 

TIA,

Kurt

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

* [SEQCTL]

************************************************************************

                       PROCEDURE SEQCTL

************************************************************************

PARAMETER PARM

PRIVATE   XVAL, XCLOSE, XALIAS

XALIAS = ALIAS()

XCLOSE = .F.

IF .NOT. USED('SEQCTL')

   SELECT 0

   USE (QDD+'SEQCTL')

   XCLOSE = .T.

ENDIF

 

SELECT SEQCTL

CLEAR TYPEAHEAD 

DO WHILE .NOT. RLOCK()

   XL = INKEY(1)

ENDDO

GOTO RECNO()

STORE '' TO XZVAL, XVAL  

DO CASE

  CASE "INVOICE" $ PARM

    XVAL  = IIF(&PARM <1000000, &PARM+1, 100000)

    XZVAL = ZSTR(XVAL,6)

    IF INVOICE = NFINVOICE

       REPLACE INVOICE   WITH XVAL, NFINVOICE WITH XVAL

    ELSE

       REPLACE &PARM WITH XVAL

    ENDIF

 

  CASE "PONO" = PARM

    XVAL  = IIF(&PARM <100000, &PARM+1, 10000)

    XZVAL = ZSTR(XVAL,5)

    REPLACE &PARM WITH XVAL

 

  OTHERWISE

    XVAL  = IIF(&PARM <1000000, &PARM+1, 100000)

    XZVAL = ZSTR(XVAL,6)

    REPLACE &PARM WITH XVAL

ENDCASE

 

UNLOCK

FLUSH

IF XCLOSE

   USE

ENDIF

IF !EMPTY(XALIAS)

   SELECT &XALIAS

ENDIF

RETURN(XZVAL)

*------------------------------ END SEQCTL ------------------------------



--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/289ea162f5642645b5cf64d624c66a14071a1...@us-ny-mail-002.waitex.net
** 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.

Reply via email to