B
Bill Reed via AccessMonster.com
Just when you think you've seen everything.
I have a query that's been working ok as the datasource for a form. Now I
want to filter that query using a "Where" clause string that's
concatenated when the db opens. I added a query to the form's datasource
query to provide the necessary fields for the "Where" clause to filter on,
and now a field, "Status", that heretofore never gave me a problem, is
displaying as "Status.Status" in the query result field heading, as though
there were another table/query in the grid that had the same field name. I
can absolutely assure you that is not the case. The only instance of that
field name is in the table "Status". (I'm stuck with the names of these
tables which were created by a novice without regard to possible
duplication of object names (or, in this case, field names identical to
parent table names)). But I am completely baffled as to why the original
query, which also only had one field named "Status" in the grid, had no
difficulty with the field name being the same as the parent table name.
This nonsense has repercussions throughout the db.
Has anyone seen anything like this before?
Thanks
I have a query that's been working ok as the datasource for a form. Now I
want to filter that query using a "Where" clause string that's
concatenated when the db opens. I added a query to the form's datasource
query to provide the necessary fields for the "Where" clause to filter on,
and now a field, "Status", that heretofore never gave me a problem, is
displaying as "Status.Status" in the query result field heading, as though
there were another table/query in the grid that had the same field name. I
can absolutely assure you that is not the case. The only instance of that
field name is in the table "Status". (I'm stuck with the names of these
tables which were created by a novice without regard to possible
duplication of object names (or, in this case, field names identical to
parent table names)). But I am completely baffled as to why the original
query, which also only had one field named "Status" in the grid, had no
difficulty with the field name being the same as the parent table name.
This nonsense has repercussions throughout the db.
Has anyone seen anything like this before?
Thanks