ObjectNinja proposing wrong object ID for tableextension with app pool

[StevenHit]

Hi, Thanks for creating ObjectNinja an make it available to the community. However, we have an issue with app pools.. We have 2 apps in the same app pool. Both have a table extension on the "Lot Information No." table. App 1 already uses fields 50000, 50001, 50002, 50003, 50004. When we use ObjectNinja to propose a field number in App 2, it proposes 50001. We did Synchronize - Update from both apps several times. What could be the reason for this? Please find more information below. Thanks for your help.

App 1

App 2

[vjekob]

Hi, welcome, and thanks for the comments and issue report.

I can't treat this as a bug because what you describe is simply a behavior that hasn't yet been implemented. For deciding which number to assign, Ninja looks at object ID only. The problem with extension objects (tableextension, enumextension) is that "inner" IDs (field IDs, value IDs) are not per target object ID, but per extended object ID.

For now, Ninja does not support the behavior you expect.

I need to look into ways how to make it possible. It's not a complex requirement, but does require a change both in the front end, and the back end.

[kpipic]

Hi, it will be nice to have option to add range for field:

to share field ID through application pool like table, page, enum etc.

In this case of multiple tableextension for the same table across apps in the application pool.

[TeusV]

This would be a very useful enhancement for us, patiently looking forward to it! 😊