[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.axapta.programming

RE: 8015.1 Error executing code ??

Michael

11/14/2005 7:51:00 AM

Hi itsupport,

Did you ever solve this problem? If so, another hint would be nice!

Thanks in advance?
--
Michael.


"itsupport" wrote:

> H! to all,
>
> We have made some modifications in project and when load and compile the project ina a new clean client with no previous project loads and compiles , the next two options return the next error when intend to access :
>
> GL/Setup/Parameters :
>
> Error executing code: NumberSeqReference_Asset (object) has no valid runable code in method 'loadModule'.
>
> Stack trace:
> \Classes\NumberSeqReference_Asset\loadModule
> \Classes\NumberSeqReference\load - line 4
> \Forms\LedgerParameters\Methods\numberSeqPreInit - line 10
> \Forms\LedgerParameters\Methods\init - line 4
> \Classes\SysSetupFormRun\init - line 3
>
> IM / Setup /PArameters :
> Error executing code: NumberSeqReference_Inventory (object) has no valid runable code in method 'loadModule'.
>
> Stack trace:
> \Classes\NumberSeqReference_Inventory\loadModule
> \Classes\NumberSeqReference\load - line 4
> \Forms\InventParameters\Methods\numberSeqPreInit - line 6
> \Forms\InventParameters\Methods\init - line 3
> \Classes\SysSetupFormRun\init - line 3
>
>
>
>
> WE already have the originals classes with no modifications loaded in the project.
>
> But the error stills .
>
> Any hints or ideas would be appreciated !.
>
> Thanks in advance...
>
> technet.navision.com Posting date: Monday, September 15, 2003
>
> technet.navision.com Posting path: Navision Axapta/Technology (Ax)/MorphX
1 Answer

MattB

6/13/2007 8:20:00 PM

0

Mark Rae wrote:
> "MattB" <somedudeus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5c69kcF2v3e32U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> Thanks to you both! I actually found a way to do this without having
>> to combine the tables, so the problem went away.
>
> Are you going to share it with the group...?
>
>

No. But only because it doesn't really apply to the original question.
Basically it boiled down to a better SQL query using UNION instead of
two distinct queries.

Matt