Comments
Sort by recent activity
Thanks @DanC. I'm still having an issue with 7.2.35 ... looking at the logs, the error being recorded says something like: ErrorCode: invalid_grant Microsoft.Identity.Client.MsalUiRequiredException: AADSTS50196: The server terminated an operation because it encountered a client request loop. / comments
Thanks @DanC. I'm still having an issue with 7.2.35 ... looking at the logs, the error being recorded says something like:ErrorCode: invalid_grantMicrosoft.Identity.Client.MsalUiRequiredException:...
note: I'm having that same problem, with SSMS 18.11.1 (and earlier with 18.10. something). I've tried Redgate SQL Source Control 7.3.10.14545, 7.3.22.15267, and a couple others with version numbers I haven't saved. I'm going to go back and try some earlier versions. / comments
note: I'm having that same problem, with SSMS 18.11.1 (and earlier with 18.10. something). I've tried Redgate SQL Source Control 7.3.10.14545, 7.3.22.15267, and a couple others with version numbers...
Kurt, thanks very much for the detailed response!!! Given that you've been able to confirm that the deadlock behavior would happen regardless, I am happy to let things lie as they are ... the tool, as usual, is doing its job well. Thanks again! / comments
Kurt, thanks very much for the detailed response!!! Given that you've been able to confirm that the deadlock behavior would happen regardless, I am happy to let things lie as they are ... the tool...
I appreciate the confirmation, Jessica. Is there a place we can go to request this feature, or a roadmap we can look at to help us predict when this feature might be available? Most other Redgate products have this connection so my hope is that this will arrive at some point! / comments
I appreciate the confirmation, Jessica. Is there a place we can go to request this feature, or a roadmap we can look at to help us predict when this feature might be available? Most other Redgate...
@Kendra_Little and @David Atkinson, thanks for your responses! I believe that clarifies the difference between what I was trying to have the option do and what the option was actually doing.
We were trying to satisfy a request from our data catalog team, who were attempting to import metadata from our source control repository into the Erwin product used to map dependencies between databases - they were having trouble tying definitions to the appropriate databases, and had hoped that a tweak to our source control commit options would give them the extra information they needed. I'll let them know that isn't an option.
Again, thanks for your responses!
/ comments
@Kendra_Little and @David Atkinson, thanks for your responses! I believe that clarifies the difference between what I was trying to have the option do and what the option was actually doing.
We w...
Thanks for the information! / comments
Thanks for the information!
Hi Sergio: sadly, my question is indeed describing a situation where I have stored procedures using three-part name references.
/ comments
Hi Sergio: sadly, my question is indeed describing a situation where I have stored procedures using three-part name references.
Thanks again for all the research on this, Alex - what you're saying makes sense! Please, pass along my appreciation to your dev team, both in particular for their help on this issue and in general for their work on this fantastic product. / comments
Thanks again for all the research on this, Alex - what you're saying makes sense! Please, pass along my appreciation to your dev team, both in particular for their help on this issue and in genera...
Thanks Alex! I certainly understand your perspective on this, and agree that SQL Compare shouldn't be modify the code unnecessarily.
There definitely is an opportunity for a fix here, though, since legitimately-functioning code results in a deployment error when sent through the tool. I'm not necessarily pushing for a change that strips out the unnecessary qualified reference, but there's at least a known limitation of the tool that means "good but weird" code can't get deployed under certain circumstances.
/ comments
Thanks Alex! I certainly understand your perspective on this, and agree that SQL Compare shouldn't be modify the code unnecessarily.
There definitely is an opportunity for a fix here, though, sin...
Alex, thanks for your support on this.
I'm guessing, given what you just laid out, that at some point in the development process someone wrote it as a SELECT statement, just to try out the logic of the expression, and then simply copied the expression into the CREATE or ALTER TABLE script.
At this point I'd say that it's more of a development thing and, unless SQL Compare can remove aliases during the table rebuild process, the best approach for my team going forward will be to find and remove those cases!
Thanks again for your help!
/ comments
Alex, thanks for your support on this.
I'm guessing, given what you just laid out, that at some point in the development process someone wrote it as a SELECT statement, just to try out the logic ...