* Upgrade - ditching GEDCOM lines?
-
Johnfromhere
- Newbie
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 04 Sep 2008 12:28
- Family Historian: None
Upgrade - ditching GEDCOM lines?
I have just upgraded from version 3.1.2 to 4.0 and the upgrade threw out a few lines of my GEDCOM which appeared to work OK in version 3.1.2.
I am not sure if the new version perhaps has a different GEDCOM check algorithm but am slightly mystified as to why the lines in question appeared OK in 3.1.2 but not in 4.0!
I am not sure how the relevant lines were entered into the GEDCOM in the first place - a long time ago but it could have been in Family Tree Maker.
Any comments out there please?
Many thanks.
John.
In version 3 :-
0 @S1809@ SOUR
1 TITL Blah
1 TEXT Blah Blah
2 CONT More Blah
1 TEXT Blah1
2 CONC Blah2
1 NOTE Blah3
Finishes up in Version 4 as :-
0 @S1809@ SOUR
1 TITL Blah
1 TEXT Blah Blah
2 CONT More Blah
1 NOTE Blah3
From Exception Report :-
Record Type=Source Id=S1809
l.12706 - EXCLUDED: invalid (exceeds max) : '1 TEXT Blah1'
l.12707 - EXCLUDED BRANCH LINE: : '2 CONC Blah2
Similarly :-
In version 3:-
1 TEXT Name Age Occupation Where Born
2 CONT Fxxxxx Cxxxx 30
2 CONT Hxxxxx Cxxxx 30
1 TEXT All 'Born in County'
In Version 4:-
the second 'TEXT' does not appear.
Exception Report says :-
Record Type=Source Id=S1845
l.12835 - EXCLUDED: invalid (exceeds max) : '1 TEXT All 'Born in County''
ID:3630
I am not sure if the new version perhaps has a different GEDCOM check algorithm but am slightly mystified as to why the lines in question appeared OK in 3.1.2 but not in 4.0!
I am not sure how the relevant lines were entered into the GEDCOM in the first place - a long time ago but it could have been in Family Tree Maker.
Any comments out there please?
Many thanks.
John.
In version 3 :-
0 @S1809@ SOUR
1 TITL Blah
1 TEXT Blah Blah
2 CONT More Blah
1 TEXT Blah1
2 CONC Blah2
1 NOTE Blah3
Finishes up in Version 4 as :-
0 @S1809@ SOUR
1 TITL Blah
1 TEXT Blah Blah
2 CONT More Blah
1 NOTE Blah3
From Exception Report :-
Record Type=Source Id=S1809
l.12706 - EXCLUDED: invalid (exceeds max) : '1 TEXT Blah1'
l.12707 - EXCLUDED BRANCH LINE: : '2 CONC Blah2
Similarly :-
In version 3:-
1 TEXT Name Age Occupation Where Born
2 CONT Fxxxxx Cxxxx 30
2 CONT Hxxxxx Cxxxx 30
1 TEXT All 'Born in County'
In Version 4:-
the second 'TEXT' does not appear.
Exception Report says :-
Record Type=Source Id=S1845
l.12835 - EXCLUDED: invalid (exceeds max) : '1 TEXT All 'Born in County''
ID:3630
-
nsw
Upgrade - ditching GEDCOM lines?
I think version 3 and earlier wrongly allowed more than 1 source text to be created in a source record and it may have happened if you used the Merge facility to merge two sources together.
Version 4 (correctly) disallows the multiple source texts which is why various people (including me) have seen this error reported with their files.
Version 4 (correctly) disallows the multiple source texts which is why various people (including me) have seen this error reported with their files.
-
Johnfromhere
- Newbie
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 04 Sep 2008 12:28
- Family Historian: None
Upgrade - ditching GEDCOM lines?
Hi Nick
Many thanks, I wondered if it was something along those lines.
I'll just add the deleted stuff to the text already in there and that should make sure the info doesn't get lost[smile]!
Cheers.
John.
Many thanks, I wondered if it was something along those lines.
I'll just add the deleted stuff to the text already in there and that should make sure the info doesn't get lost[smile]!
Cheers.
John.
Upgrade - ditching GEDCOM lines?
It looks like I will be getting loads of these exception reports when I upgrade. I have been using multiple TEXTs in source records to hold separate pieces of text (e.g emails from a contact).
I agree that FH4 should report an exception about multiple TEXT fields (especially as I was one who reported this bug), however I am appalled at the way existing FH3 files are handled. Such a change in program behaviour should be made very prominent in any readme.txt or FAQ so that users are aware of it. FH4 should also automatically convert such multiple TEXT fields into NOTE fields for FH3 Gedcom files, reporting to the user any such changes.
I agree that FH4 should report an exception about multiple TEXT fields (especially as I was one who reported this bug), however I am appalled at the way existing FH3 files are handled. Such a change in program behaviour should be made very prominent in any readme.txt or FAQ so that users are aware of it. FH4 should also automatically convert such multiple TEXT fields into NOTE fields for FH3 Gedcom files, reporting to the user any such changes.
- jeemo
- Famous
- Posts: 129
- Joined: 04 Jun 2004 07:52
- Family Historian: V5
- Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia
- Contact:
Upgrade - ditching GEDCOM lines?
Jane
Off Topic - Have you noticed that the first three posts in this thread were dated 31 April?
Forum software problem?
John
Off Topic - Have you noticed that the first three posts in this thread were dated 31 April?
Forum software problem?
John
- Jane
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8442
- Joined: 01 Nov 2002 15:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Somerset, England
- Contact:
Upgrade - ditching GEDCOM lines?
John I see them as the 30th. What time zone are you on in your profile?
- jeemo
- Famous
- Posts: 129
- Joined: 04 Jun 2004 07:52
- Family Historian: V5
- Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia
- Contact:
Upgrade - ditching GEDCOM lines?
GMT+10AEST:Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
John
John
- Jane
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8442
- Joined: 01 Nov 2002 15:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Somerset, England
- Contact:
Upgrade - ditching GEDCOM lines?
Ok I suspect it's a bug in the forum software. There is a newer version, but I have been a bit nervous of upgrading as the programming team fell out and there are now two different versions to pick from.
- jeemo
- Famous
- Posts: 129
- Joined: 04 Jun 2004 07:52
- Family Historian: V5
- Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia
- Contact:
Upgrade - ditching GEDCOM lines?
OK. Do you want an image?
John
John
- Jane
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8442
- Joined: 01 Nov 2002 15:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Somerset, England
- Contact:
Upgrade - ditching GEDCOM lines?
No it's fine, it's probably doing some thing silly in the local time routine as the times in the file are correct.