I'm getting an Assertion Error code when running ODBC after Lanpak 9.0D upgrade. "File none, Line 586. Yes to invoke debugger, Cancel if debugger already running, No to ignore." When I press No, ODBC runs as normal.
I originally thought the error was from our other application but when I ran it with excel using a pre setup connection, I did get the error but it ran fine after clicking on No. However, I tried to set up new a connection with excel and had a message "This data source contains no visible tables". Data did not load.
Installing your 9.0D lanpak will have replaced the file ADS32.DLL in the \Softrak\system Folder. You might try copying back the backup copy the install should have made. There's no specific need for the 9.0D Lanpaks with ODBC. You'll need them for Ledger though.
Our application that uses ODBC does need Lanpak to work and it is on a different server. We just did a restore to the previous versions and did the upgrades again except for the Lanpak with ODBC. Everything now works perfectly. Thanks!
I am having the same problem, although I have 6 different companies set-up on the same server. Five of them work fine, the 6th one (the largest one) causes the error.
Is the updated Lanpak required or can I go back to the old version?
Thanks for letting us know you are experiencing the same problem. Can you connect using Excel?
As my previous post stated, there was no specific need to install the new Lanpaks just for ODBC. The lanpaks were required for Ledger and later upgrades.
Registered: 06/15/04
Posts: 3612
Loc: Toronto ON, Canada
Hello Support: I have a client using ODBC for EDI processing. They were getting the message: "Assertion error, file non line 586. Yes to invoke debugger. Cancel if debugger already running". This error occurred after installing the latest versions/service packs of GL/LP/AR/OE/IC.
I rolled back to an older ADS32.dll (Oct 2010) to temporarily solve the problem.
Questions:
Does an older ADS32.dll cause a problem running recent modules?
The new ADS32.dll is more than twice the size of the older one. Is that correct?