I have a very basic form with a Body field that is set as rich text.
Another field is a simple text and it’s type is computed. The formula for the text field is:
@Abstract([TextOnly]; 64994;“”;“Body”);
I am finding that at certain times the result of the computation is blank even though the “Body” field is full of information. No error occurs when the form is computed.
Does anyone know what might cause this, or how I could code to test for the problem?
Thanks for the time.
Subject: RE: @Abstract returning blank
Doesn’t sound familiar, but “full of information” is a little vague. What kind of information, exactly? Do you find any pattern common to documents that have this problem? Is this ever a problem with a new document or is it only old documents that have this issue? (I’m thinking, you see, that there are documents created before the abstract field was added, so that they do not contain that field value at all). Have you looked at the document properties of a problem document from a view, to see whether the rich text contents can be read from them and what their field flags are?
Subject: RE: @Abstract returning blank
Andre,
Sorry for the vagueness…
To be more specific, I’m using a Body field essentially as an email “Memo” body. The database functions similar to a mailbox. I have another application that mails documents into this database, and then I do some parsing of the Body by “abstracting” the value into my text field.
When I look at the document properties, the Body field is broken up into multiple Body fields as I’d expect. My external application is placing a large HTML string into the Body field and then mailing it. The form is set to render HTML.
I’ve been searching for a pattern, but so far have been unsucessful. I was thinking it was failing becuase the rich text field was too large, but that doens’t seem to be it.
The abstract field has been in there since the beginning, so that’s not it either. The problem does not occur with all new documents - just some.
This has been working just fine for several months… And even though the code and form have not changed, they have upgraded the server where it resides to Notes 8. I suppose I can’t rule that out.