Hi, I have to download a module made in 3.10 to 2.60. I have tried with simple exports/imports, the dev toolkit and I run into problems : with textconstants and messages like “fin.exe hase generated an error…”, when I try to compile those objects in 2.60. I think they relate to the fact that as of 3.01 they started to use object id’s for everything, eg they did not use object id’s for text constants and variables in 2.60. I tried manipulating the text files myself, but that didn’t help. Is there a “procedure” on howto tackle a downgrade ? It’s a large add on and I don’t want to have to recreate everything myself… if I can avoid it. Bye for nw, Gunther Coppens
I haven’t tried to do mass downgrade like this, but I do have some ideas. We’ve got multiple clients on multiple versions, and I was for a while trying to do all development in 3.10 executable, and just converting the database when connecting. I’d then do any development that I wanted to do, and would export the objects. When I’d import into a 2.6 database and executable, ,I’d get the exact same fin.exe crashing message you’re getting. The root of my problems? When the Attain executable creates a new variable, funtion, etc. it gives it an ID. The IDs for fields that a developer crates are in the 1000000000 range. When a 2.6 database tries to compile something wtih an ID in this range, it crashes, causing the error you stated. So, I don’t have any suggestions on how to proceed, except maybe to edit the actual text file exports. But you may be playing with fire. Hopefully this has been helpful in finding the root of some of the problems.
Depending on what type of object you’re trying to downgrade, then this is not recommendable. New c/side functionality might have been added. Why not upgrade the 2.60 version to Attain first? It migth take some time, but it’s normally worth it.
or why not just upgrade C/SIDE to 3.10?
quote:
Originally posted by Admin
Depending on what type of object you’re trying to downgrade, then this is not recommendable. New c/side functionality might have been added. Why not upgrade the 2.60 version to Attain first? It migth take some time, but it’s normally worth it.
You’re right. But in this particular case, some dark commercial/marketing things have decided not to.
quote:
Originally posted by Lars Westman
or why not just upgrade C/SIDE to 3.10?
that I do not understand ? You mean a 2.60 client with a 3.10 C/SIDE. How is that possible ??
quote:
Originally posted by gco
quote:
Originally posted by Lars Westman
or why not just upgrade C/SIDE to 3.10?
that I do not understand ? You mean a 2.60 client with a 3.10 C/SIDE. How is that possible ??
2.60 Database. → Open with 3.10 executable & click yes to upgrade. You have to take care as is a non-reversible step. Regards,
Also strange is the following : - a codeunit compiles without errors - when I call the codeunit from a table, form : crash - as a matter of fact I don’t have to call the CU, just declaring the CU variable and compile does the crash Can you pass records to codeunits in 260 ?
quote:
Originally posted by apertierra
quote:
Originally posted by gco
quote:
Originally posted by Lars Westman
or why not just upgrade C/SIDE to 3.10?
that I do not understand ? You mean a 2.60 client with a 3.10 C/SIDE. How is that possible ??
2.60 Database. → Open with 3.10 executable & click yes to upgrade. You have to take care as is a non-reversible step. Regards,
Thank you , but : Will the customer not have any issues with it if he tries to run this on a 260 then ?
quote:
Originally posted by gco
Thank you , but : Will the customer not have any issues with it if he tries to run this on a 260 then ?
You’ll need to upgrade the client/server executables on the customer too if doing that way.
quote:
Originally posted by apertierra
quote:
Originally posted by gco
Thank you , but : Will the customer not have any issues with it if he tries to run this on a 260 then ?
You’ll need to upgrade the client/server executables on the customer too if doing that way.
Thanks for the info, but it is not an option in this particular case.
Another difference is for example : In 260 you can not put parameters on the OnRun trigger of a codeunit, in 310 you can…
I tried the folowing: In NA 3.60 there is a Table 370 Excel Buffer (which imports/exports an excel sheet - very usefull). I exported it like .fob, imported to a NF 2.6 database. Reocompiled - it was OK. And it can by used normaly - no problems. I trierd more other objetc, there was no problem…
You can try the following: 1) Backup Nav DB in Attain 3.10/3.60. 2) Restore into blank Financials 2.60 3) Save the object files and import into your 2.60 dev db. 99% of objects are ok, some bits don’t transfer properly. Worth giving it a shot though if time permits … Regards, Edward.