I had just changed a few of the variable names. When Monarch tried to load it had an error "unable to load bad link.
I then went into the main report, deleted the lookup created a new one. When I went into the sub-report they could not load the (now missing) lookup-link. However I could not fix anything and the error box was completely blank. I deleted the link, saved, closed Monarch, re-opened the project, & created a new link. Now it worked.
Point taken, but I was not editing it in the downstream report but the upstream report. I wanted Monarch to pick up on the changes in the linked lookup.
When I open the secondary report and the external model has changed Monarch should offer a dialog explaining the problem of a mismatch. Getting an error message of <nothing>, without any way to fix the problem is discouraging.
OK end of my rant!
Just to clarify my understanding on this;
As I read it you linked to a report which was in effect strong linked to the original source of the data which itself was a variable controlled by other processes. Is that correct?
But Monarch requires a direct link to the source which is especially pertinent for strong links by their nature. So the ideal route would be direct to the lookup rather than through a reference in another report.
Did I understand correctly?
If so I can see it both ways though my personal rationale for this was that a direct link is safer for the process because it eliminates a stage of possible anomaly where the intermediate 'report' (or whatever) might be altered to address a completely different need without any way of making this evident to other processes.
This could be a good start point for discussions about best practice for Linked Object users - a whole new field for us Monarch users to get to wrestle with!
At the User Conference I asked a question of the participants in a couple of sessions about how many of them had Version 9 and were actively using the Linking and User Defined Objects functionality. Not too many hands were raised at the time so I guess the learning curve is just starting. Which means the next year could be fun ...
[size="1"][ May 31, 2007, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Grant Perkins ][/size]
To answer your question the original report is a sales report. It uses an external access table as an look-up for the part numbers. In the actual report I have only the item_key, the external file has all the item particulars.
So far so good, then I have another report showing returns. I want the look-up to the item master to be structured exactly like the sales one.
I changed the access table field from "desc" to "Description" and then the sales lookup was modified with great results.
As I wanted all the links to be the same, I assumed that the strong link from the returns report to the sales look-up would be able track the change; and would follow along to what ever was in the sales report lookup.
That's when the wheels fell off...