I have reached the maximum number of input fields in my invoice report and I have started to rationalize the various fields by comparing them to standard and to any customizations.

I have observed many fields in std BaaN have a defined depth of 0 but my vrc has a defined depth of 1. This puzzles me. Examples of fields with a zero depth include tccom010.nama, tccom010.namb. Why would any report include fields with a depth of 0?

Also, I have observed many fields which are listed as input fields which do not print on the report but are referenced in the script. Is it ever appropriate to utilize a field in the script and exclude the field as an input field? If so, when?

Thanks in advance. - Joy Conner

I have never really paid attention to the depth except when passing an array to the report. So I would expect most variables to have a depth of 1. But you are correct that there are a lot of variables where the depth is 0. I tested one of mine changing the depth from 0 to 1 and it did not make a difference. So maybe 0 and 1 are the same.

As for the other question - I have passed variables to reports where I use them only in the script. Mostly I have done this when modifying a Baan standard report. In another case I did it because I did hit the max variables on a report. I found I was passing some info that could easily be looked up in the script itself in a header section or group section. So for example instead of always passing the complete workcenter record with all of the SFC details, I pass only the workcenter. In the script I then lookup the workcenter data. Mainly it kept me from passing a whole lot of static data with the report detail fields. So you can use this to reduce how much data goes to the report.

Mark

Hi Joy,

I had a similiar situation while dealing with a client. Their operation required a quite complicated invoice. I ran out of input fields (256?). What I did was I re-opened the table in the report script by passing in the key as in input field. It worked well. Hope it helps.