Error handling during entry

[twgonder]

So I thought I would have some more fun with post #28.
I added a simple validation I found to the MyDate field to see what happens


When I try to change the date in the table datasheet view I get this:


Figuring that maybe the "" around m might be a problem, I deleted one " on each side.
Very interesting error messages for a simple validation copied from a Microsoft help.

[CJ_London]

seems to me that your continuing contempt for access does you no favours, Access is what it is, not what you think, or want, it to be. It has served me and my clients well for 25 odd years and continues to do so.

I've reviewed dozens of large applications written in Access. They have fallen short of anything I've reviewed that were developed by db professionals

Interesting - so very few are for general consumption, most are unique to the client and therefore not available for review. Those that are available are typically examples of how something could be done, not necessarily representing good practice and I resent the implication that access developers are not professional.

I can't believe that you are the only one needing to handle multi language scenarios, yet we don't hear of the problems you seem to experience from others. As far as this thread is concerned, you have been given answers, yet you want to know why access doesn't behave as you expect - go ask MS. Everybody else understands this is the way it works, this is how you resolve it. They don't need to ask why, they just get on with it.

I'm tired of your constant access knocking so I for one am not going to respond to your posts any longer. If you check who has been responding on this forum, there are precious few - 4 by my count of your last few threads. You've just lost 25%

Edit: final comment since you have posted whilst I was drafting the above and an example of your lack of transparency.

copied from a Microsoft help.

provide the link - might help others to tell you why you get the problem.

[twgonder]

So, I thought I would have some more fun with post #28.
I added this simple validation rule copied from a Microsoft help.
And here's what happens.


I tried making it " instead of "" around the m, more interesting messages.

[Micron]

I too have grown tired of the incessant posting about how the tool is lacking when things don't work as you expect. That wouldn't be so bad if it were true or you were simply looking for enlightenment. Instead you continually gripe about what you perceive as shortcomings of the tool but the real issue is you put stuff together without "reading the manual". The latest is just another complaint about the same sort of thing - this time it's about using Date functions in table validation - an easily searchable subject that should take you 2 minutes to discover that it isn't allowed. Instead, the perception is that the tool you are using is so inferior to everything else you've used and it can't be that you aren't reading the assembly instructions for it.
Good luck. Signing off.

[twgonder]

I too have grown tired of the incessant posting about how the tool is lacking when things don't work as you expect. That wouldn't be so bad if it were true or you were simply looking for enlightenment. Instead you continually gripe about what you perceive as shortcomings of the tool but the real issue is you put stuff together without "reading the manual". The latest is just another complaint about the same sort of thing - this time it's about using Date functions in table validation - an easily searchable subject that should take you 2 minutes to discover that it isn't allowed. Instead, the perception is that the tool you are using is so inferior to everything else you've used and it can't be that you aren't reading the assembly instructions for it.
Good luck. Signing off.

That's a funny comment. I'm guessing you didn't take the time to read that I pulled the expression right out of a Microsoft Access help on the topic. What special super-powers do you have that allow you to fathom my motives? So, you saw nothing strange in the Errors.accdb and how a simple form in Access behaves for field validation?

[moke123]

So, I thought I would have some more fun with post #28.
I added this simple validation rule copied from a Microsoft help.
And here's what happens.


I tried making it " instead of "" around the m, more interesting messages.

I think I spotted your error immediately. Not surprised by the error at all.

I'm tempted to not point it out but I'm curious how acquainted you are with your datatypes.

[twgonder]

seems to me that your continuing contempt for access does you no favours, Access is what it is, not what you think, or want, it to be. It has served me and my clients well for 25 odd years and continues to do so.

...I resent the implication that access developers are not professional.

That's good for you and what you expect. Maybe I'm just a bit more particular? You're resenting something I didn't say. That's an inference you drew, but not upon what I actually said. It could be other developers have just put up with the Access quirks, and it doesn't reflect on their individual abilities in designing an application. I'm kinda in that same boat right now.

I can't believe that you are the only one needing to handle multi language scenarios, yet we don't hear of the problems you seem to experience from others. As far as this thread is concerned, you have been given answers, yet you want to know why access doesn't behave as you expect - go ask MS. Everybody else understands this is the way it works, this is how you resolve it. They don't need to ask why, they just get on with it.

The question as I posted it has nothing to do with multi-language. It has to do with error checking, it's lack of consistency and trying to present users with a more acceptable alternative to understand what went wrong with their entry. If you're referring to the validation error, did you try it too? Did you get a different result? Did the result you got make any sense?

I'm tired of your constant access knocking so I for one am not going to respond to your posts any longer. If you check who has been responding on this forum, there are precious few - 4 by my count of your last few threads. You've just lost 25%

And I'm tired of people saying that I don't understand Access or that I said something I didn't say, or that I'm somehow using the 100-bladed-Swiss-knife in some way it wasn't designed to be used (kind of a silly argument when you think about it), while they avoid the question I'm asking, or answer some other question. But, I know I have to be patient and try to glean what I can from other's experience (when they take the time to closely read and follow the examples I give, I can't be the first to have these problems). After 25 years of experience, it shouldn't be so hard to understand my objections to certain things in Access. Gosh knows I see a lot of other threads in other sites with similar complaints. So, here I am trying to figure out how to work with them, rather than just give up and churn out crap code.

Edit: final comment since you have posted whilst I was drafting the above and an example of your lack of transparency.
provide the link - might help others to tell you why you get the problem.

Which final part of which comment are you referring to? I too am posting while you are, so things aren't in exact order.

Also, after month's on this forum, I'm still having posts disappear after writing extensively to some question or observation. I'm not sure if it's my connection or bugs in the forum software. I suspect it's this forum because it's far worse here than on other non-access related forums I use frequently. This sometimes puts me in a foul mood I admit.

[twgonder]

I think I spotted your error immediately. Not surprised by the error at all.

I'm tempted to not point it out but I'm curious how acquainted you are with your datatypes.

Well enough to know that Access isn't going to do me much good with historical figures and events that precede the year 0001.
Oh, and I did read the MS helps (Using the Date/Time Extended data type - Microsoft Support), and I don't see anything that implies the expression shouldn't work. So, I'm curious, why aren't you surprised? Have you read something outside of the official Microsoft documentation that implies otherwise? And if so, what does that say about the MS documentation?

This post should put to rest the complaint that I don't read the "assembly instructions."

[twgonder]

seems to me that your continuing contempt for access does you no favours,...

Maybe someone at Microsoft reads some of these forums? I know I did years ago for my own RAD (although they were bulletin boards and IRC back then).
A problem ignored isn't going to solve itself.

That said, the help I've gotten in this forum, and by that I mean actual tips and not just complaints about my complaints, have allowed me to design a system that I can live with (and almost be proud of) so far. The sad part is that I often spend days solving a simple problem that should take maybe an hour to resolve. And this is with the help of countless forum threads and Google searches, resources that weren't available when I had problems while developing my RAD and applications starting in the 70s-90s.

But hey, what do I know? I do know that my news feeds come in with numerous daily reports of how this or that in Micrsoft products has failed due to some new update. I'm not the only one reporting problems with the engineering at Microsoft am I?

[twgonder]

So, here I am, answering all these critical observations (instead of coding for user entry errors), and I don't see any evidence that anyone experimented with the errors in post #28. Not that anyone is obligated to, but to cast complaints about my experience without actually looking at the problem? Really?

[moke123]

and I don't see anything that implies the expression shouldn't work.

This post should put the rest the complaint that I don't read the assembly instructions.

There's this

The Access team has implemented a new data type: Date & Time Extended, which enhances syntax compatibility with SQL server, and increases the accuracy and level of detail in records that include dates and times. This investment aligns with our broader goal of building Access apps on top of data that can be stored in the cloud. ...

If you’d like to reference the type in VBA code, please be aware that expressions on the type are not supported, given that the data will be casted as a text. However, performing calculations of the new type in VBA code is an investment that the Access team is planning for at a later date.

and this

Warning When you create expressions and use date/time functions based on the Date/Time Extended data type in Access, you may lose precision in calculations or encounter other problems with the results. We are aware of this issue and plan to better support expressions and functions in an upcoming release. As a workaround, you can Create a pass-through query to use the equivalent SQL Server expression and date/time functions. For more information, see Comparing Access SQL with SQL Server TSQL.

[moke123]

So, here I am, answering all these critical observations (instead of coding for user entry errors), and I don't see any evidence that anyone experimented with the errors in post #28. Not that anyone is obligated to, but to cast complaints about my experience without actually looking at the problem? Really?

I did and it did pretty much what I expected access to do. There's a reason for the cancel argument in the before update event and a proper method to erase the entry. You just didn't do it.

[twgonder]

There's this

Yes, I read that. But I fail to see that it says validation expressions won't work (unless I simply don't understand Microsoft speak). Why would adding nanoseconds to a time break the date portion? MS admits they released an incomplete solution that needs work (how many years ago was that feature added?). I think I've been saying pretty much the same in many of my supposed complaints. After squashing innovation in the market with anti-competitive antics, MS sits on their laurels, collects the $ and expects the public to be happy with their half-ass solutions and failure to fix bugs. I'm sorry if my analysis and observations on this offends some MS sycophants.

[twgonder]

Dang, another of my posts somehow didn't post. WTF?!!! I preview and post yet it disappears into the ether. When I get back from a trip, I'll do it again.

[twgonder]

I did and it did pretty much what I expected access to do. There's a reason for the cancel argument in the before update event and a proper method to erase the entry. You just didn't do it.

Okay, I'm back to this one. Which field did you test? Was it the date error? Did you notice that the errors are happening in the Form On Error event? Did you notice that the before update event happens before the Form On Error event which is where the Access table and form validation, and text message for the developer to use, is run? So, the actual validation test that MS built into Access happens after the before update (which is premature given the error testing they themselves, not me, designed), and that it doesn't have a cancel event? This is what you expected?

In other words, is it logical to run the before update event before the field has even been tested for basic data format entry errors? This is exactly what I mean when I say half-assed design, that should have been fixed decades ago. But now it's a bit late, given the number of developers that have worked around this kind of stupidity.

And even if you do use cancel in the before update of the MyDate field (and give an error message), the Form On Error is going to run, which you then have to deal with. Even after a cancel?!!! Gosh, that makes so much sense, doesn't it?

The only solution I now see is that every field that needs some kind of basic entry format test needs to have a before update routine, even though the Form On Error event is sitting there ready to do it's job, but it can't without a cancel and sufficient parameters for the developer to determine exactly what went wrong. Unless someone can enlighten me on how I'm using the "tool" incorrectly.

NOTE: See post #47 before trying to duplicate the sequence of procedures mentioned above.