Large body section prints on second page.

bob_up

I have amended the purchase order print to include a roundloop body section that takes up about 75% of the available space space between the header and the footer sections. I have several body sections for the roundloop dataitem, of varying heights. Different body sections are printed according to the type of order and line type. This is all controlled in the OnPreSection trigger.

If I print an order with the largest roundloop body section (and no other types), I get a 2 page print. The first page contains no roundloop body sections (is blank except for the header) and the second contains the intended section.

If I reduce the height of one of the other body sections, that isnt being printed, the problem disappears. It is as if the print procedure adds up the heights of all of the body sections for a dataitem when calculating whether it needs to start a new page.

I have had to squeeze the sections heights to the minimum to avoid blank pages but the results look cramped. Is there a way to avoid this effect ?

Thanks in anticipation

Bob

mohana_cse06

I guess it is classic report only..

What do you mean by large body section by height or width?

Can you show us the screenshot of sections?

bob_up

Yes, this is a classic report only. I meant "large" in terms of height.

Here is a screen shot of all the body sections, plus the SubConProcDescCnt indented dataitem that sometimes gets printed, depending on the body section type. The report also has a page loop header and footer and a roundloop transfooter, which prevents the roundloop body sections from printing over the preprinted totals sections.

Thanks for taking an interest.

mohana_cse06

Why did you put all the fields in one section?check whether you can split it into different sections..

Check KeepWithNext property of sections of roundloop body..it tries to print all sections together..

bob_up

I tried splitting the big section into smaller ones and it made no difference. In fact I think it made things slightly worse.

I am not using KeepWithNext.

mohana_cse06

bob_up wrote:

I am not using KeepWithNext.

You have to set it to No..by defulat it is Yes..

bob_up

Aha ! :-) It was KeepWithNext. I didnt realise it was Yes by default.

Thank you Mohana.

mohana_cse06

Welcome