Skip to main content

Simple But Useful VFP Tip: Remote Views with SQL Server varchar fields

Note: This is a feature that's been in VFP for years - but I've often found that useful features often remain hidden until someone points them out. So I'm taking to finding my little VFP tips as I come across them and re-posting them here.

I work in a variety of environments but one thing I always keep with me on my USB drive is VFP. Regardless of the data I have to work with, I always find that a task comes up that is infinitely easier in VFP. The funny thing is that other colleagues on a team who haven't been exposed to VFP are usually amazed at how quickly stuff can be done.

Today, I was working with a SQL Server table and SSMS only lets you edit the first 200 rows on their own - otherwise you have to script it (or use another tool).

For most of these systems, I typically create a VFP Database Container and then create remote views as necessary.

Oftentimes, the problem is that when VFP comes across a varchar field that is longer than 254 characters, it immediately converts it into a memo field so I am left with something like this:


This is annoying as the field I really need to modify is the DisplayText column or the Memo field and while I can open it, I would prefer to be lazy on this end.

So in the View designer, highlight the desired field and choose Properties. Then change the Data Type of your output of choice. Since most of my text in this column will be less than 254 chars, I'm just making that change here.

Now, when I browse my remote table, I can see the contents of the field, make changes and they propagate right back to the SQL table.


Nice and simple.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Elevating Project Specifications with Three Insightful ChatGPT Prompts

For developers and testers, ChatGPT, the freely accessible tool from OpenAI, is game-changing. If you want to learn a new programming language, ask for samples or have it convert your existing code. This can be done in Visual Studio Code (using GitHub CoPilot) or directly in the ChatGPT app or web site.  If you’re a tester, ChatGPT can write a test spec or actual test code (if you use Jest or Cypress) based on existing code, copied and pasted into the input area. But ChatGPT can be of huge value for analysts (whether system or business) who need to validate their needs. There’s often a disconnect between developers and analysts. Analysts complain that developers don’t build what they asked for or ask too many questions. Developers complain that analysts haven’t thought of obvious things. In these situations, ChatGPT can be a great intermediary. At its worst, it forces you to think about and then discount obvious issues. At best, it clarifies the needs into documented requirements. ...

Respect

Respect is something humans give to each other through personal connection. It’s the bond that forms when we recognize something—or someone—as significant, relatable, or worthy of care. This connection doesn’t have to be limited to people. There was an  article  recently that described the differing attitudes towards AI tools such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini (formerly Bard). Some people treat them like a standard search while others form a sort of personal relationship — being courteous, saying “please” and “thank you”. Occasionally, people share extra details unrelated to their question, like, ‘I’m going to a wedding. What flower goes well with a tuxedo?’ Does an AI “care” how you respond to it? Of course not — it reflects the patterns it’s trained on. Yet our interaction shapes how these tools evolve, and that influence is something we should take seriously. Most of us have all expressed frustration when an AI “hallucinates”. Real or not, the larger issue is that we have hi...

When A Machine Starts To Care

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Arthur C. Clarke (1962)  I first used that quote when I was starting out in the tech industry. Back then, it was a way to illustrate just how fast and powerful computers had become. Querying large datasets in seconds felt magical—at least to those who didn’t build them.  Today, we’re facing something even more extraordinary. Large Language Models (LLMs) can now carry on conversations that approach human-level fluency. Clarke’s quote applies again. And just as importantly, many researchers argue that LLMs meet—or at least brush up against—the criteria of the Turing Test.  We tend to criticize LLMs for their “hallucinations,” their sometimes-confident inaccuracies. But let’s be honest: we also complain when our friends misremember facts or recount things inaccurately. This doesn’t excuse LLMs—it simply highlights that the behavior isn’t entirely alien. In some ways, it mirrors our own cognitive limits....