Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1412Re: [AQ_NFS] ? on Reserving Ordinances

Expand Messages
  • thomas_nevin_huber
    Jul 30 11:57 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Okay, now we have some more information that may be behind the
      problem.

      First, ORTS, in the batch mode should show the original batch,
      particularly if you kept a copy of the FOR on your hard drive. Update
      ordinances should check all linked AQ to FT records to see if any
      ordinances have been performed. In addition, if you chose the options
      to include Confirmation and Initiatory, Update Submitted to In
      Progress and Create a list of updates, you should be able to generate
      a list of changes made to your AQ file from actions in FT. Note,
      however, that certain entries (Not needed is one of them, and
      different dates for the ordinances) will not generate any entries in
      the list. According to Gaylon, this is done to keep the Update
      Ordinances running as fast as possible.

      And, until all the ordinances are complete, the names will continue to
      appear in the ORTS Manage Batches listing.

      Keep in mind that ORTS does _not_ find names to be reserved.

      It provides a list of names that you have already reserved in AQ.

      The Reserve Ordinance displays the list of the names that you have
      currently reserved, but not produced a FOR for. All reservations must
      be made from the Family and Pedigree views in AQ, but _only_ if you
      have selected "Show temple icons" from the ORTS menu.

      The temple icons tells you if there are ordinances that can and need
      to be done (an arrow), if all work to be done is in process (an
      exclamation symbol), or if all work has been completed (a check mark).
      The priority of the arrow, ! symbol, and check mark lets you know what
      is happening with the individual and the ordinances.

      I think that when AQ found the 38 people, it wasn't finding the people
      who were "qualified," but those who you had reserved either through
      new FamilySearch or Family Tree. If you haven't reserved any other
      people through nFS (now no longer functioning) or FT, then AQ will not
      "discover" the names.

      As far as the Manage Batches function, I always run a reconciliation
      to make sure the list is complete. Otherwise, a glitch in your data
      can cause a batch to disappear.

      Also, I would suggest that you run a Check/Repair on your data, just
      to make sure that some action (closing out AQ with a power failure (or
      crash), for instance during any kind of update operation) has not
      corrupted your local file. It happens (unfortunately) and the results
      can be unpredictable. If the corruption is bad enough, you can also
      have AQ rebuild your database.

      Finally, make sure that you are always runnig with the latest build in
      AQ. Build 12 had problems that were resolved in build 13.

      Thanks again for clarifying what you were doing.

      Tom

      On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:46:50 -0700, you wrote:

      >No. My situation was:
      >
      >When I went to reserve the initial group of people, AQ found 38 people who
      >were "qualified" to have their work done. I reserved their work, printed
      >out the FOR and sent it on its way.
      >
      >NOW, no matter what I try and do in ORTS, ALL it shows me are those
      >original 38. I can't remove them, and I can't add to them.
      >
      >My question is: WHY was it that ORTS will not move past/delete/add to the
      >list of the original 38?
      >
      >To add a new wrinkle to it, as of this morning, that batch of 38 is GONE
      >from the Manage Batch system, and my Reserve Ordinance List (which by the
      >way, has an auto-populate "qualified" feature, FYI) is COMPLETELY CLEAR.
      >
      >I haven't touched the ORTS since last week, and have done nothing different.
      >
      >This morning is a week to the day since I printed out the FOR.
      >
      >So my additional question now is: WHAT CHANGED? Or is there some kind of
      >time-lock in AQ?
      >
      >Just saying. It's pretty odd.
      >
      >Kathy
      >
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic