URGENT : Inconsistency in VAT Entry table

pedroccda

I try to execute the database test for testing Field relationships between tables and I get a lot of warnings like this:

:!:
Warning: 'VAT Entry' does not exist. Entry No.: 608 The Closed by Entry No. field in the VAT Entry table has a table relationship to the Entry No. field in the VAT Entry table. 'VAT Entry' has the following identification fields and values: Entry No.='380'
:!:

This means that it refer to a record that doesn't exist...but the value of the field The Closed by Entry No. is assigned automatically by the Codeunit 12. #-o

So, why my db is inconsistent? Anyone has a similar situation? #-o

I try to understand the way the codeunit assign the The Closed by Entry No. and I see that it depends on Type and VAT Prod. Posting Group change, but it's not trivial to understand it at all for correct the db inconsistency.

pedroccda

pedroccda wrote:

I try to execute the database test for testing Field relationships between tables and I get a lot of warnings like this:

:!:
Warning: 'VAT Entry' does not exist. Entry No.: 608 The Closed by Entry No. field in the VAT Entry table has a table relationship to the Entry No. field in the VAT Entry table. 'VAT Entry' has the following identification fields and values: Entry No.='380'
:!:

This means that it refer to a record that doesn't exist...but the value of the field The Closed by Entry No. is assigned automatically by the Codeunit 12. #-o

So, why my db is inconsistent? Anyone has a similar situation? #-o

I try to understand the way the codeunit assign the The Closed by Entry No. and I see that it depends on Type and VAT Prod. Posting Group change, but it's not trivial to understand it at all for correct the db inconsistency.

no one has any idea?

Iqbal_Febriano

Check on your VAT Entry table, perhaps the record with entry no. : 380 has been deleted somehow.

pedroccda

Iqbal Febriano wrote:

Check on your VAT Entry table, perhaps the record with entry no. : 380 has been deleted somehow.

The problem is the contrary. Record 380 exists but the 608 doesn't exist. The problem is that this record are created by a standard codeunit...so why there are inconsistencies?

Iqbal_Febriano

OK, so you have one or few records deleted. I believe the codeunit work well. But maybe another process delete it / them somehow. If you are doing some customization, check out whether it has effect on VAT Entry table.

Kowa

Has there been a date compression on the VAT Entries ? Check the date compression registers.

pedroccda

Kowa wrote:

Has there been a date compression on the VAT Entries ? Check the date compression registers.

No compression...

pedroccda

Iqbal Febriano wrote:

OK, so you have one or few records deleted. I believe the codeunit work well. But maybe another process delete it / them somehow. If you are doing some customization, check out whether it has effect on VAT Entry table.

Someone has modified the codeunit 12... but it seems not to touch the parts relative to the field that has the problem....

Shenpen

Did the client have power (electricity) problems? We had the same problem, due to power failures and database damages.

- Try a full database test
- Try a backup-restore

If encounter any problems, tell Microsoft to help you using their C/DART tool.

pedroccda

Shenpen wrote:

Did the client have power (electricity) problems? We had the same problem, due to power failures and database damages.

- Try a full database test
- Try a backup-restore

If encounter any problems, tell Microsoft to help you using their C/DART tool.

I think we haven't power (electricity) problems. thank you...