> That's not what it would do if there was a collision. That is a most
> unusual behavior.
>
> Did he try more than once?
As far as I'm aware, yes. Then again, I'm relying on the original
information here as the chap in question has been away working the last
couple of days. I'll try and clarif
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Eamonn Hamilton wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 21:50 -0400, Luke wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Eamonn Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm, the problem was it wouldn't et him post the 1297 invoice, almost as
>>> though there was a collision - but no such invoice exists in the
>>> databas
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 21:50 -0400, Luke wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Eamonn Hamilton wrote:
>
> > Hmm, the problem was it wouldn't et him post the 1297 invoice, almost as
> > though there was a collision - but no such invoice exists in the
> > database.
>
> What does "wouldn't let him" mean?
>
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Eamonn Hamilton wrote:
> His workflow is pretty consistent, but he *may* have emailed the invoice
> before posting. I'll check with him.
Nothing wrong with that, as long as he remembers to post after he emails
it.
Luke
--
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Eamonn Hamilton wrote:
> Hmm, the problem was it wouldn't et him post the 1297 invoice, almost as
> though there was a collision - but no such invoice exists in the
> database.
What does "wouldn't let him" mean?
Luke
-
Hi,
> >
> > Too the best of my knowledge, for whatever that is worth, no. I am sure
> > someone will correct me if I am wrong.
>
> I hope someone doesn't - I like your answer better than the
> alternatives ;)
>
Agreed :)
> Hmm, the problem was it wouldn't et him post the 1297 invoice, almost a
On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 16:45 -0400, Luke wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Eamonn Hamilton wrote:
>
> > It would appear he was posting two invoices, both of which were emailed,
> > but after checking the second last invoice failed to go into the database.
> > This left him with invoices numbered
> >
> >
On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 09:19 -0700, Bob Miller wrote:
> >
> > Now, I have questions :
> >
> > a) has he broken anything by doing this?
>
> Too the best of my knowledge, for whatever that is worth, no. I am sure
> someone will correct me if I am wrong.
I hope someone doesn't - I like your answer
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Eamonn Hamilton wrote:
> It would appear he was posting two invoices, both of which were emailed,
> but after checking the second last invoice failed to go into the database.
> This left him with invoices numbered
>
> 1295
> 1296
> 1298
>
> with 1297 missing. He then stepped ba
>
> Now, I have questions :
>
> a) has he broken anything by doing this?
Too the best of my knowledge, for whatever that is worth, no. I am sure
someone will correct me if I am wrong.
> b) can the invoice number be changed to match the one previously mailed out?
You could open the invoice, c
Hi,
I look after a 1.2.18 system, the the guy operating it has just called me
with a problem.
It would appear he was posting two invoices, both of which were emailed,
but after checking the second last invoice failed to go into the database.
This left him with invoices numbered
1295
1296
1298
w
11 matches
Mail list logo
