I haven't done much in Access for years, but I have picked up a bit of support work to help out.
Database is an Access 2003 one, running on 2010 in compatibility mode (Behaviour was the same on 2003 though) with the data in a SQL Server 2005 backend.
We have a single form (i.e not master/subform) that is based upon a query, joining 2 tables - it's a simple organisation to address. It is theoretically many to one, but in practise one to one. I wasn't even sure if/how this would work, but it does in general.
If you create a new record (The form has a button, but it's the same if you use the built in new record button) it happily generates a new address ID from the autonumber on the tblAddress table, and populates the org_addr_code column in the Organisation table.
However if you then try and create a second new record, it throws an error
The Microsoft Access database engine cannot find a record in the table tblAddress with key matching field(s) 'ORG_ADDR_CODE'
If I hack records directly into the datasheet view of the underlying query, then it lets me add as many records as I like.
If I exit the form after inserting the first record, and go back in, I can add another record just fine. It's only if you try and do it more than once in the same form 'session'. I have tried every variation on refresh/requery I can think of, but no joy.
Anyone got any ideas? I'd rather not have to rewrite the whole form - if it came to that they will just have to stick to adding one record at a time.
Carl
Related
Why would my form/subform mislink records using SharePoint List back end?
I have years of experience with MS Access, but this is my first time with SharePoint List as a back end.
I developed a small database for a small non-profit. Started off with Access 365 front end and back end, located on one user's computer. This ran fine and correctly for a few months, and last month we migrated the back end to SharePoint Lists so that two other users can use the database. They each have the front end on their desktop.
There's a bound form, Events, linked to tblEvents. Subform, subVolTime, on this form is linked to tblVolTime, to show the volunteers and how much time they spent at the event. In the subform property, Link Master Fields is set to tblEvents.ID; Link Child Fields is set to tblVolTime.EventID. There's no extra VBA code.
We migrated to SharePoint Lists using the wizards, and did nothing else. Shortly afterwards, my user noticed that the wrong people were showing up under events. He can tell just by looking at the names.
I created an audit query, and I can see that in some cases the dateAdded (date the record was created) in tblVolTime is BEFORE the dateAdded of the event in tblEvent. This can't be right, because you must have a record in tblEvent before an associated record in tblVolTime.
For example, there's an event ID 261, created on 4 Nov 2021. The records for the volunteers linked with this eventID were created 7 Oct 2021. Something went wonky.
Any suggestions are welcome. My ideas include: unbind the form; hide the subform until the event record is saved; create the event record before the user actually adds any data to it.
Well, hard to tell. However, unlike moving Access data say to SQL server?
Moving data up to SharePoint is VERY MUCH a different process. Why?
Well, for one, when moving data to SharePoint, the auto number PK's you have (and you MUST HAVE FOR ALL TABLES) are often re-numbered.
Now, due to this re-numbering of auto numbers?
Well, that means before you migrate the data, you BETTER really, but really and beyond really sure that a relationship was setup between such tables.
In the case of Access, while in most cases we do have a correctly setup relatonship, to be honest, you REALLY never had to do that. In other words, if I setup a master link and child link for a sub form? Well, access would just generate the PK autonumbers for the main table, generate the pk autonumbers for the child table. And THEN during a data insert would correctly insert/set the "FK" values in that child table to the parent table. As long as the link master/child settings were correctly setup (but no actual relationship was setup), then the application would happy work.
If one was to migrate the data to say SQL server? Well, since the PK autonumbers are NOT touched during this up-load process - then all relationships and their data would ALSO make a valid trip up to SQL server.
However, in the case of SharePoint? Autonumbers for ALL tables are and will and in most cases are re-generated!!!!
But, this tends to not be a problem if you up-sized the data using Access. It has built in SharePoint support, and say if a parent reocrd goes up from Access to sharepoint and the PK id is changed? No probem, since if you REALLY did setup,and you REALLY did have a relatonship setup, then the migration process is smart enough to go find the child reocrds, and update the FK values. But of course the migration process can ONLY do this magic trick if you KNOWS about the realationship.
Another simple example?
Say we have a simple form, and we have a SMIPLE combo box to pick say favor color.
tbColors
ID (Auto number PK).
Color (text color).
So, so now we have a simple form, and we dropped in a combo box. When we choose a simple color like "red" or "blue" from the combo, we of course are saving the "pk" id from the above table.
Now for a LOT of simple tables like above, never used, or bothered with setting up a realtonship. (no need - just a few choices from a combo box).
And if you were up-size data to sql server? Again, this would work fine - no problem at all.
However, if you up-size to SharePoint? You REALLY but REALLY better have setup a relationship even for this simple silly little combo box. Again, the reason is simple. When that simple table of pick list values goes up to SharePoint, the autonumber PK id's will change. And thus for any other table that used that simple pick list? You have and MUST have setup in your relationships window that this was in fact the relationships - and again, the reason is re-numbering of autonumbers.
So for ANY relationships that used PK and FK values? They MUST in ALL cases when using SharePoint MUST have been defined in the access data tables (relationships window) BEFORE you transfer that data. And again, the reason is simple - during a up-load process to SharePoint, autonumbers WILL CHANGE!!! And since they change, then any other dependent table that uses those PK values (as a FK) MUST have been part of a defined relationship. If they are not defined before migration to SharePoint, then a change in a PK value will NOT tell SharePoint to go and find and correctly update all of the "child" records or so called FK values.
So, the first question to ask is did this break in related numbers occur a long time ago (at migration time), or did this break occur due to some bad code, or the wrong values having been selected?
So, migration of related data to SharePoint is a "delicate" operation, and the main reason of course is that the related tables MUCH have been setup as enforced relationships BEFORE you migrate. If such relationships were not strict defined, then during the migration process then the relation of data based on those PK/FK values will break at that migration time.
Now, it could be a simple issue that this sub form in question does not have the correct link master/child settings - that's the first thing to check.
I want to preface this by saying I don't have any real programming background, I'm just trying to update an existing database at work.
We have an access database and I want to add an additional Y/N checkbox to an existing form. The form updates a SQL table. Currently the record source is a SQL statement.
I can go to the SQL table, add a new field and make it Yes/No data type. There are other Yes/No fields in the table and the default settings for the new field are identical to the others. I next go and update the linked table through External Data in the ribbon. I can go into the table in Access and see the new field - so far, so good.
Next, go to the form design view and form properties, go to the record source, update the SQL statement to include the new field. (I've also tried this thru query builder, same result.) From here, I start to get the error.
If I go back to form view and change any data in the form and hit the next record button or save button, I get the Write Conflict error. "This record has been changed by another user since you started editing it..." The 'Save Record' button is greyed out. I am the only person accessing the database or SQL server.
I've tried to finish building the new button and linking it to the new field in control source (that went fine), but it didn't make any difference. If I go in to edit the record source and remove the new field, everything works again (but of course, the new field isn't in the control source list, so isn't linked to the check box).
Any ideas? Thanks.
A strong contender for the reason for your problem is the form itself.
Most likely the form is setup with a specific query as the Record Source. Its not to say that that is inherently incorrect, but it makes adding new columns to the source significantly more difficult.
The problem would likely be solved if you just changed the Record Source to reference the table itself, rather than a query, if that is in fact how it is referenced.
If Ms Access tries to pull data from a table using a query through a form it will inherently Pessimistically Lock the table in question, making it unable to be modified. However, you can usually still modify the table through the query itself, but you would need to add the column changes into that query first.
I'm not quite sure if I am making sense here, but something like this (for a table called "Table1"):
In theory, if the form is the problem... then if you closed it and tried to make modifications to the table, then the changes should work when the form is closed.
Someone else fixed it for me, but from what I understand, it was a communication issue between SQL and Access. Something with the setting of the null value in SQL not being set the way that Access could understand.
We had the issue narrowed down. When the new field was added to the table, you couldn't change any info directly in the table, but you could with the form.
If you added the new field to the form's record source, you couldn't edit any info at all.
Thanks for everyone's input.
Hello helpful internet strangers. I have created a fairly simple database for a client that has one main entry form and a search form that uses unbound text boxes for searching around 15 fields.
Details are below, but here is my problem: When I add new records and use the search form all the fields work as expected and return the correct results in the datasheet. When I sent the database to the client and they add new records, they are not returned in the search. I had them save the database with their records and send it back to me, and I confirmed that when I search for the records they added (I can see the records in the table) they are not returned in the search. If I add new records to the copy they sent me back, my records do appear in the search.
I created the database in Access 2013 on a Windows 8 machine. The client is using Access 2010 on Windows Vista.
The field types are text, dropdown and date. The dropdowns are all based on lookup queries so they store the id number in the main info table and pull the name value from the query. All of the fields in the search query are written to allow nulls, including the date range searches. And again, all fields test out correctly on my machine when I enter the records.
I went on site and compared settings and nothing jumped out at me except the different versions. I also watched the client enter new records and she didn't do anything 'wrong' or unusual. When I try to do a save as 2007-2010 it says I am using features that won't allow for that, but for the life of me I can't think of anything like that since this is really a very straightforward design.
I'm going to do a package as executable, but am highly doubtful that will help. Any insights?
Thanks in advance.
A few things. Most important - always, always develop in the earliest version of Access that the system will be used with. So, you need to rebuild, using Access 2010, period. Try creating a new blank database (in 2010) and importing the objects one (or a few) at a time. Make sure the system is split. One file for the FE (forms, queries, reports, code, etc.) and one for the BE (tables only). Make sure that the Filter On Load property of all forms is set to No. If the recordsource for the form contains a where clause, make sure that the newly entered records meet the criteria for the where clause.
I want to be able to track any changes made to any of the fields in an existing table. The scenario is as follows:
the user opens the datasheet view for an existing table in MS Access 2007/2010
updates values in 2 fields and 5 rows (10 cells)
saves the table (overwrites it)
I want to be able to push the changes (10 changes/rows) to a new table and then be able to open it in datasheet view to refer to it. Is there a way I can do this in access without using form?
In 2010 and later you can use data macros, or what often other systems called table triggers.
You cannot in 2007.
Keep in mind that your use of the term “save table” is VERY wrong in the context here. In fact VERY wrong in the context of most databases. The user does not “save” the table.
You can ONLY edit ONE ROW at a time in a datasheet. When you move off that record then the ROW is saved (not the table). , and if you move off, then the record is saved.
In 2010 and later, you have use of table procedure code. This thus will allow one to use a table trigger.
So 2010 and later does support table triggers and store procedure code. But since your question in includes Access 2007, then my suggestion to use table triggers (called data macros) may not work unless you can restrict users to 2010 and beyond.
In the follow example, when a user updates a row, then a “audit” table is updated with the user information. The function fosusername() is in fact a VBA function. This code is called from the before change update event for the table.
Of course the problem here is the VERY basis of your question assumes that users save a table – they don’t, they edit + save “single” records, or a single row at a time. So figuring “out” how a user is done would certainly be a challenge. So while code can be run when the users edit data, having table code run “when” the user closes the table is not possible.
As the end of the day, it likely best you create a datasheet that looks just like the table, and then change a few settings to “lock down” and prevent the user from using tables directly.
As far as I know there is no solution for this without using a form. I do not know of events (like a change or dirty event) for the actual data tables.
In a form you could use the dirty property to make sure you fetch the data. You can make the form look like a datahseet with DoCmd.RunCommand acCmdDatasheetView or set the form in datasheet view on default.
This is the simplified version of the problem: We have a table on an Oracle Database. We cannot extend this table (bought app). We need to describe each row of that Oracle table with some text.
So the descission has been to use MS Access for this. So I created in Access a table (Call it ACCESS_TABLE). The table consists of ID and MEMOTEXT (and more). The ID is the link to the table on Oracle (Call it ORACLE_TABLE). I have successfully linked up MS Access thru ODBC to Oracle and have both tables available.
My first idea was to JOIN them. But then I cannot do edit. MS Access locks all fields up because of the JOIN with an ODBC table.
Then I thought of creating a form to just edit the ACCESS_TABLE and display the data from the ORACLE_TABLE. This might work but I abandoned that idea also because I want to show the user the ORACLE_TABLE (as the leading table) so that the user knows what rows still need a description.
So I was wondering whether I copy all data from the ORACLE_TABLE and add it to the ACCESS_TABLE. I then have to implement some replication algorithm of deleting/updating rows in the ACCESS_TABLE when they change but this might work. And I wondered how this could be done best.
Also I wondered whether I am at all on the right track or should tackle the problem differently in general.
Why did you abandon the form so quickly? Did you try Oracle as the main form and Access as a subform? It is also possible to have two subforms synchronized, so that subform 1 shows all Oracle records, joined to Access, if required to show whether an Access record exists, and subform 2 shows the Access record for the selected record in subform 1. There is an example in the Northwind sample database (customer ordser form, AFAIR).