Issues with

Oct 1, 2012 at 5:39 PM
Edited Oct 4, 2012 at 5:56 PM



I know that this code is static, but unfortunately I just updated to this version from 210 and have encountered issues.  Because the project is working with the NHDAL, I cannot upgrade to v5 at this time.

When running the database upgrader, my installation history is wiped out.  I believe this is an effect of moving to a versioning table, although I am not sure why this information was not copied to the new table.

After running the installer, the installation history form does not report any history (even the just installed version of the db)

Also, the "IsValidConnection" function in ConfigurationValues.cs of my DAL no longer functions correctly.  It appears to still be trying to use the old method of accessing the extended properties.


Do you have any suggestions?

Thanks in advance, 



Oct 4, 2012 at 5:45 PM
Edited Oct 4, 2012 at 5:45 PM

If it helps, I just checked the source of the v5's SQL INSTALLER and EFDAL generator and the problems that I have appear to be the same.

The code in the Contexts.IsValidConnection() and SQLServers.SelectExtendedProperty() appear at a glance to be identical.  Therefore, I believe this problem exists in both branches.  If you fix one could you fix the other?




Oct 13, 2012 at 11:25 AM

I am sorry but there was an issue with pulling the history. This will be fixed in the 5 line though not in the 4 line. Your history should still be there in the "__nhydrateschema" table however the history dialog does not pull it up. We are only making fixes for critical errors in the 4 line.

Oct 15, 2012 at 3:46 PM

I understand, I suppose I am concerned that database updates are applied correctly if the history dialog doesn't display the correct version of the database.

Also, I use the IsValidConnection function on the model to determine if I can launch the application or display an upgrade message.  This function is broken in the 4 line.  I guess when it is fixed for the new branch I can take that code and recompile 4 on my own.

Can you let me know when this function is repaired in the new line?