Synchronize Data step reports data length error when there is none

rsaritzky

Hi all,

I'm doing an upgrade from 2009 to 2016. First step is going to 2015.

In the document "Upgrading from Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2009 R2 or Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2009 SP1 to Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2015", Task 7 is "Run the Schema Synchronization". When I run this step, I get a sync error. Following the instructions, I ran Sync-NAVTenant from the NAV2015 Administration Shell. This is the error reported:

Sync-NAVTenant : The schema synchronization may result in deleted data. The
following destructive changes were detected:

Table: 5050, Contact
Field: 5054, First Name: Length reduced
Field: 5055, Middle Name: Length reduced
Field: 5056, Surname: Length reduced

Our table 5050 in NAV2009 has the default field lengths for the above 3 fields - 30 characters. Similarly, the 2015 objects also have the same field lengths (30 characters). I'm not sure why NAV things these fields are being reduced in length. So far, the only way I can overcome this issue is to change the field lengths to 50 (I did not try 31 or any number less than 50 - just assumed that since this is a common field-length increase in later versions of NAV, I'd just go to 50. )

This overcame this problem, but I need to get back to 30 characters. Am I going to have to build a data upgrade step to truncate these fields?

Thx

Ron

postsaurav

If it solves the issue Please mark it as Answer

postsaurav

Hi Ron,

The Two Statement what Sync Tenant is Generating and What you are saying are contradicting each other.

I am pretty sure that you need to have a look on 2009 database again, the field size will be 50 there.

If you truncate the fields the data in the fields will go away.

Check from SQL the data length in table field.

mohana_cse06

It seems they are standard fields in standard table.
did you customize them?

If not, Microsoft should have added it in upgrade toolkit.

if customization, then we need to write code in upgrade toolkit as per our requirement.

rsaritzky

Hi Saurav,

Thank you for reminding me to double-check field lengths. I had merged this object and somehow lost the field lengths in our 2009 database. You were right - the fields in 2009 were in fact length 50. Don't know how I overlooked that, but I did. Case closed.

Ron

postsaurav

If it solves the issue Please mark it as Answer