Data Sheet fields do not update correctly with specific at_instr (SS3)

[adamh1]

Hi all!
Here is a tough one:
Problem: Data Sheet fields do not update correctly with specific at_view (at_instr).
The basic lookup is: Lots of stuff from ‘instr’ and data from tag_reg
Instr joined on instr.equipment to tag_reg.tag_no. This tag_reg will give me the description of the tag in instr.equipment. (this being my related equipment)
Data sheet would have:
Tag_No---------Tag_descrip--------Rel_equip_tag-------Rel_equip_descrip.

All this works well if the AT_instr view contains only one instance of the instr table. If I add to the at_instr view another instr table (ex join instr.iinput to instr_a.keytag) my previous lookup stops working for the join on my tag_reg. The above “Rel_equip_descrip” is not looked-up correctly the other three data is OK
If I remove the join for the instr_a all is back to normal.
If I add an additional tag_reg (instr with two tag_reg) it works OK
Two instr and two tag_reg does not work
Three instrument and tag_reg does not work
(does not work = rel_equip_descript is looked up wrong)
If debugmode is ON, there are no errors displayed.
The sql string from the rebisview table (at_instr) if ran separately (in a query in project.mdb)gives no errors and yields the expected view.
Database is central (multi-project) SQL SS3

Any idea would be appreciated.

Adam

[PartRidge]

In Datasheet Editor when you have the MS Excel file open what does it display when you have it display the fieldnames? It should display the instr table and any supplemental tables, if you have them, then it should display the AT_INST_ view and available fields from it. Keep in mind there is a field security issue with the view not reference inforcing the security as defined from the RebisDictionary. Bentley is working on fixing this, but it is a major bug on the SS2 and SS3 series, not sure when they will have that fixed.

You also should be aware that there are a few definitions that are reserved for dealing with Datasheets and these cascade into the named cells. If you use any of the reserved definitions, even in part, the named cell becomes explicitly read-only. From your examples I don't think you hit any of the reserved naming.