PROJ 2000: Inserted Projects not found

[Rod Gill]

You have another potential problem. The schedule is inserted linked to the
master? If it is and you edit the path in the master but don't also change
the sub-project, it's a matter of luck and time before one or both projects
corrupt. With any linked scenario the ONLY safe way to edit a link is to
have all affected files open, make the changes then save ALL of them. DDE is
the technology used and it's notoriously flaky.

Personally I find that keeping master projects with links and resource pools
is unreliable and limiting. I always create my consolidated projects and
pools using macros, then once all work has been done, I save, unlink and
save again. This leaves any schedule available to be linked to any master or
resource pool anyone needs.

For reporting purposes I recommend creating a consolidated project with no
links and keeping it for a weekly audit trail. This consolidated project is
then freely available for reporting purposes and also consolidates work for
each resource across all inserted projects which is useful.

I think a design review is maybe worthwhile to focus on what is most
important for this system, then look again at how you are doing things
because this problem you are having is not one that has caused issues before
and between us, we've written hundreds of macro driven systems.

 

[Ronald Dodge]

The pathname is editted within Windows Explorer, not either project files,
so that's what causes the issue.

However, I have ran into other link issues that I have never really liked
how MS Project handles such as if one saves as the mapped drive route, but
then open via the UNC (Universal Naming Convention) route, it will not only
open it in the UNC route, but also open it again in the mapped drive route,
which that in itself causes a lot of these link type issues and caused some
other problems too, so we have instructed them to specifically use only the
mapped drive route.

RAM usage limitation:

when so many projects are linked to within one mini schedule (the idea was
to link all of the mini schedules into one master schedule, but cause we
have hundreds of projects and the limitation of MS Project and the finite
system resources that's available, this has been impossible to do), the RAM
usage gets to be so high that eventually, it won't even fully open the file,
so we have told the users to link only up to a maximum of 30 projects to 1
mini schedule.

Why do we have so many projects?

Unlike flow like type jobs that only requires maybe a few projects at most,
our industry is more heavily into art type stuff, which yes, processes gets
standardized by so much, but each job ends up having it's own set of tooling
due to the various art work of the various jobs, thus even the tooling has
to be done on a job by job basis.

I would certainly be interested in looking at what you have available for
the suggestion that you have provided, but again, would our requirements end
up exceeding the limitations of the program given what I have just described
above? We are in the midst of reviewing the design and even looking to
alternative sources to accomplish what we are wanting, but nothing is
definitely set as yet.

 

[Rod Gill]

Same problem, you can't edit links to one end of a link without certain
corruption sooner or later.

If you create consolidations with no links, then your limit is well over
10000 tasks on even a basic PC.

I would look at a re-design of how you have built your solution.

 

[Jan De Messemaeker]

Hi,

Not a matter of ideas, as I said, ait works, a customer of mine runs it
daily.

Here you go:

Function CleanSendkeys()
Dim X As Integer
VBA.SendKeys ("{TAB}~")
Loop1:
X = MsgBox("Press OK to continue", (vbDefaultButton2 + vbOKCancel))
If Not X = vbOK Then GoTo Loop1
CleanSendkeys = True
End Function

I'm not going to explain why and how, it should be self-explanatory.
HTH

 

[Ronald Dodge]

I understand your point, but when I used the following code:

VBA.SendKeys "{ESC}", False
MSProj.OutlineShowAllTasks

The dialog box still comes up (Expected) and DOES NOT clear itself out
(Unexpected).

The above is the Statement version of the SendKeys, and I also tried it with
the Method version of the SendKeys by using the Application.SendKeys, which
that didn't work either.

 

[Jan De Messemaeker]

Everything is impossible, if you try hard enough.
Point taken: you want to prove there is no solution.
Nobody can beat a belief.
Hope you're happy.

 

[Ronald Dodge]

Sorry if you took it the wrong way, as I have the belief that nothing is
impossible unless it can be proven via logics, and even then, it's not
completely impossible cause there is the such thing as divine intervention.
Therefore, I still believe there's a solution to the issue, it's just not
found yet.

Prime Example that I ran into within Access. With Access, I have 3
different levels of error checking, Data entry level (as the user is typing
in the information within the field/control), Field/Control level, and
Record level. Well within Access, the field/control level of data entry has
what I consider a major issue in particular for mouse users cause mouse
users can get locked into a control at inappropriate times that has
field/control level error checking such as when the mouse user attempts to
click on a help button, form reset button or back out of the form button.

Well after 3 months of research and development on the issue, I created a
solution to that issue, though the bad news meant that all of my forms and
controls had to be unbound, which at this time only found one exception, but
even then the binding could only take place on the temp table within the FE
file, not on any of the permanent tables within any of the BE files, but the
good news meant from that point on, I could now have it mouse user friendly
while keeping in all of the stringent checks.

Yeah, the way I had to go about getting to the solution, I didn't like and
still don't really like having to do it that way, but if I want to have the
stringent data checks in place to have the data as accurate as reasonably
can, and allow for my mouse users to use it without them getting frustrated
cause they are locked into a control at an inappropiate time, I had to apply
the solution that I came up even though it means a lot more work on my part
developing.

There's not very many things I would consider major, but this error checking
thing I do cause I am a very strong believer in having the data validated as
much as it reasonably can be. After all, just as the term says, garbage in,
garbage out, is so very true, and one about has to make the programs about
as idiot proof as one reasonably can.

 

[JackD]

Ronald,

Often in software the intervention is not "divine" but rather the opposite.
Logic has nothing to do with it.

 

[Ronald Dodge]

Yes, I know that, but I still had to throw that bit in there for
non-computer related situations, so as I don't sound like I have no hope.

However, as far as computers is concerned, I have been able to resolve quite
a few issues using logics cause after all, computers is nothing but 100%
pure logics. Just some things are hidden deeper down into the program,
which makes it appear as though there's no logics to it, but rather there is
a logical reason for it. It's only when you start digging deeper down into
those programs and work with them more is when you start picking up on the
patterns. Sometimes, that means you have to devote a lot of time to the
programs, thus one reason why I haven't been able to figure some of the
issues out that I use at home for gaming purposes cause I'm at work so much
working on business solutions that I don't spend near enough time at home on
it not to mention when I'm at home, I don't want to have to spend too much
time on it anyhow unless there's a valid return for me doing it, which as
far as gaming is concerned, that's not one of those type of situations.
However, the solutions that I work on at work, they definitely have a return
as there's been times when I have quite a bit of an efficiency rate returned
from the stuff that I worked on. This project alone is one such project
when I first took it over. Initially, one person was doing the tasks
manually spending anywhere between 2 and 6 hours per day depending on how
many projects were involved. When this person was going on vacation, I was
asked to back up this person. Instantly as I was being shown how to do the
job, I noticed a lot of places where it could be automated. Just during
that one week time, I initially took it down from 4 hours to 2 hours, then
as time went, I got it to the point that it was fully automated and running
twice a day taking only between 20 and 40 minutes per day by the computer
system. That's a 500% efficiency rating return for the time I spent on it.
It was working just fine until we upgraded and that's what's brought on the
issue currently at hand.

Don't get me wrong, I know that I am very much so a detailed analytical
oriented person, thus why when I get suggestions on there, I often time will
first review the suggestion and compare that to what is it that I'm working
with and how the programs works, which in this case includes VBA. As I
review the information, often times, either questions will come to mind or
something else comes to mind that I learned from what I have dealt with that
maybe others haven't had dealt with, so when I respond back with the
information as I do, some may think I'm being too critical, while some may
view the info as being too technical or rather confusing to follow through
(though that may have something to do with thought process as different
people have different thought processes), or whatever the case may be.
Another part of that is the fact that I can't stand inefficiencies when
there's a better way of doing things with the same or better results.

--
Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000

Ronald,

Often in software the intervention is not "divine" but rather the opposite.
Logic has nothing to do with it.