One template or multiple templates in the model?
Could you have one template overlaying another?
What do you see if you use the Field List feature? (It should help you to ID which template a field comes from.)
It is just possible that you have some strange corruption of the Model file .xmod file that is presenting differently between the report page and the data table fields listed but that would be very odd. In that case I would discard the model and start again.
I have recreated the template and it works fine, but I was bothered by what happened to the old one as I don't want to repeat anything I might have done to cause it. The best explanation might be that this mod was created in an older version and resaved into the newer one?
I only opened one model template, so I don't know how a second one could come into play? The field I am seeing is appearing in table view but the fields are not listed in the Templates
so I deleted all the templates, when I switch to table view there are 9 fields listed ( I didn't list them all in previous post).
if you send me you email in a PM I can send you the template
Something that may be similar in terms of a damaged file cropped up a couple of weeks ago, though that was the first time for a year or so.
I think sometimes a file write manages to pout things in the wrong place in an otherwise structured file, nmost likely due to something going on in memory of at the lowest levels of the operating system when controlling the writes to disk. It happens. Rare, but it happens.
I had some similar experiences beta testing V7 a long time back. 2 or 3. Never did manage to replicate it.
I suspect if you look at the model file using something like Notepad you may spot something inconsistent on the structure but I doubt that would provide a deeper understanding for either of us.
I would very much doubt that it relates to anything you have been doing specifically so suggest you carry on as normal but if you find the problem recurring then we may be on to a way to track down what is really happening.
I would be tempted to save changes to a model regularly rather than work entirely in memory. One good reason for that is that should you have a computer failure for any reason all your work is not lost. I usually save with a new name each time so I can always step back if I need to. If memory based activity is the root of the problem then saving should reduce, perhaps eliminate, the risk.
I could have a look at the file but, as you may guess from my earlier comments, I'm not sure that I would find anything that would be of use to you or, indeed, even correct analysis.
Lets take that route if you see a recurrence of the problem. It might give us more to go on and we maybe could get the developers involved at that point.
thanks Grant...good idea to check in a text editor.....interesting I can see it wrote a history of the original "mod" file from April 2008 when I switched versions.
copy_from="C:\Documents and Settings\ziggy\My Documents\MonarchTemplates\Models\REPDetail.mod" author="user" time="2008-04-28T16:02:01"/>
If anything it seems like a version issue, I'll keep an eye out for it.
Have a look for non-matching (or non-paired) xml tags.
Going back a while and working from memory I seem to recall that I found what looked like mis-matches in the start and end markers for various parameters - as if something at some point had written an update in the middle of a place used by another parameter. This would make the difficult to interpret accurately but, if unlucky, might not cause a 'fatal' corruption. So one ends up continuing to work on something that will ultimately be unreliable because it doe not fail totally.
I doubt that Monarch is coded at such a critical level that writes back to a file are managed for very specific positioning. I would think that standard Windows processes are invoked for such purposes. Therefore I would suspect some rare but possible issues with the lower level processes - the deep and dark areas that mere mortals need know nothing about - normally.
Of course I have been known to be wrong. Indeed some would say it is my normal level of understanding.:o
I count myself among the critics.
very interesting, I never thought to look at it in a XML editor. I took a look in an XML editor I have, and all the tags match.
I was also able to see Templates and Table Fields, so if need be I can edit the template like this if I ever need to....only if it was a complex one, to get my template working again i just used the Import option in Templates to pull in the templates from the bad Model.
anyways, thanks again, this was a good learning experience.
I wonder if an XML editor is likely to try to make good from what it is given? (Like Monarch Template definitions which may hide the erroneous sections of the xmod?) In which case the matching tags would not be a surprise but may not tell the whole story.
Just guessing here but I suspect you may see a different result with a straight text editor.
Not unlike a PDF file in fact, where the internal data can be anything from good to garbage but you (mostly) can't tell based on the presented output.
However when a program comes along to process the file it may be able to make those 'corrections' - and indeed perhaps should not be allowed to!
I could be wide of the mark.