User profile for jela

Hi Robert, thanks for the quick update on this topic. I'm looking forward to hearing from you with a solution as we currently would have to properly check every deployment script. Kind regards, jela / comments

Hi Robert, thanks for the quick update on this topic. I'm looking forward to hearing from you with a solution as we currently would have to properly check every deployment script. Kind regards, jela

0 votes

Hi, thank you for your reply. I just checked again - no, the procedure does not have dependencies to linked servers or external data sources. I also followed your instructions to make sure, I didn't have other options checked, than suggested by you. In "Project options" > "Diagram" every single option is checked. I still ran into the same problems as described in my previous post. For the procedure (as this is the only object, which gets added) the toolbar entry "Resolve All External References" is not available. Also right clicking the object in either the diagram or the "Objects in Project" list didn't provide me with an option "Add to Project" to resolve external references. As far as I remember, Dependency Tracker worked for me before the latest update. I'm not 100% sure though, as I didn't pay attention what server versions I was connecting to before the update. As mentioned before, the problem only seems to occur on SQL Server 2012. Thanks and kind regards, Jens / comments

Hi, thank you for your reply. I just checked again - no, the procedure does not have dependencies to linked servers or external data sources. I also followed your instructions to make sure, I didn'...

0 votes

Hello Mr. Castro, I wasn't aware, that there alreday existed a documentation entry regarding the topic of this threat - thanks for pointing that out. The way I read your reply and the documenattion entry, I would assume, that both comparisons (semantic and textual) are carried out during the comparison phase. Would it be possible to highlight semantic differences in another colour? That way there wouldn't be a need to reorder the SQL statements, but one would still be able to spot 'real' differences more easily. Thanks for your help, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Jens / comments

Hello Mr. Castro, I wasn't aware, that there alreday existed a documentation entry regarding the topic of this threat - thanks for pointing that out. The way I read your reply and the documenattion...

0 votes

Hi Aaron, thanks for the reply and looking into things. MERGE INTO TableB AS dest USING TableA AS src ON dest.Col1 = src.Col1 AND dest.Col2 = src.Col2 WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET Col3 = src.Col3 , Col4 = src.Col4 WHEN NOT MATCHED BY TARGET THEN INSERT ( Col1 , Col2 , Col3 , Col3 ) VALUES ( SomeValue1 , SomeVlaue2 , SomeValue3 , SomeValue4 ); The above is an example statement, which unfortunately isn't 100% formatted as it is in SSMS. Anyway, I'll try to explain, what looks a bit odd. USING, ON, WHEN MATCHED, WHEN NOT MATCHED are indented, whereas I would understand them to be part of the MERGE statement itself. The keywords THEN UPDATE SET and THEN INSERT are each on a new line - I understand, that it comes down to personal preferences here, but I would see UPDATE SET and INSERT as actions, whereas THEN would belong to the WHEN clause itself. The openening bracket after VALUES is on a new line, whereas the opening bracket after INSERT is on the same line as the keyword. Maybe it becomes more clear, if I try to show, what I have in mind: MERGE INTO ... USING ... ON ... = ... AND ... = ... WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET ... WHEN NOT MATCHED BY TARGET THEN INSERT ( ... , ... ) VALUES ( ... , ... ) WHEN NOT MATCHED BY SOURCE THEN DELETE ; If there already is a way to achieve a formatting similar to this, I would appreciate some hints on how to accomplish this. Thanks again for your help. Kind regards, Jens. / comments

Hi Aaron, thanks for the reply and looking into things.MERGE INTO TableB AS dest USING TableA AS src ON dest.Col1 = src.Col1 AND dest.Col2 = src.Col2 WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET...

0 votes

Hi Aaron, thanks for your changes. We have been using the private build for a few days now and think, the formatting looks better this way. Thanks again. Will this be implemented into an upcoming version or do you plan on providing some more options for SQL Prompt? Kind regards, Jens / comments

Hi Aaron, thanks for your changes. We have been using the private build for a few days now and think, the formatting looks better this way. Thanks again. Will this be implemented into an upcoming v...

0 votes

How can we help you today?

jela

Comments