Microsoft Dynamics AX (Archived)

Batch job keeps retrieving old code

(0) Share

Report

Posted on by vv1984

1,087

Hi,

i've got a scheduled batch (RunBaseBatch Class) which calls a method in another Class (MyClass)

Class "MyClass" needed a fix in its code.

Now the scheduled batch seems to keep finding the old version of "MyClass".

Is there any workaround for this issue? (I mean, except rescheduling the RunBaseBatch job...)

Thank you in advance

regards

*This post is locked for comments

I have the same question (0)

All responses (14)

Answers (0)

Suggested answer

Martin Dráb 239,029 Most Valuable Professional on at

Like (0)

Report
Copy link

Link copied!

If it's about code, rescheduling wouldn't fix it. It's still the same code. Try recompiling your application.

But maybe you mean that your batch tables contain the state (= member variables) of your class from the time when you scheduled it, which is as expected. In that case, delete the old batch and schedule a new one.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
vv1984 1,087 on at

Like (0)

Report
Copy link

Link copied!

Hi Martin,

ScheduledClass calls ModifiedClass.

I've recompiled ModifiedClass, but saw no changes in batch execution.

It's not a matter of packed variables, but just a bunch of code lines replaced.

Old version of ModifiedClass was something like:

MyTable::find(CustId)

New version is:

select firstOnly MyTable where MyTable.CustId == CustId

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Martin Dráb 239,029 Most Valuable Professional on at

Like (0)

Report
Copy link

Link copied!

First of all, what "changes in batch execution" do you expect? Both statements should do exactly the same thing, shouldn't they? Then the whole assumption about old code being executed doesn't look credible.

It seems to me that you're looking for a problem where it isn't. Please tell us what problem did you try to fix by replacing find() with the select statement.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
vv1984 1,087 on at

Like (0)

Report
Copy link

Link copied!

The table MyTable has got that ::find() method no more. So i expected to fix it by using the select instead..

But ScheduledClass keeps retrieving that old code from ModifiedClass.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Martin Dráb 239,029 Most Valuable Professional on at

Like (0)

Report
Copy link

Link copied!

Does it mean that you're getting an error about find() being missing?

Please help me to help you. I don't have a crystal ball to see what's going in your system - you have to tell me.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
vv1984 1,087 on at

Like (0)

Report
Copy link

Link copied!

Yes, but a part from the error I get, the point is finding the reason why the batch job keeps retrieving the old code of my ModifiedClass, even if it has been already recompiled.

I think I should have not recompiled ScheduledClass, since no edits has been made on its code. Only my ModifiedClass has been modified...

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Martin Dráb 239,029 Most Valuable Professional on at

Like (0)

Report
Copy link

Link copied!

The problem may be in incorrect compilation (compiling just the modified object isn't enough in some cases), a cache, wrong detection from your side or who knows...

I can't do more with the current amount of information.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Suggested answer

Prabath 665 on at

Like (1)

Report
Copy link

Link copied!

Did you restarted the batch server and try?

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Community Member on at

Like (0)

Report
Copy link

Link copied!

Prabath's restart worked for me. I was experiencing the same issue. I have a minimalistic runbase class that runs nightly to create a sort of a snapshot/speed table. I updated the class and promoted it up. I noticed that the results from the nightly run weren't coming out as expected. During troubleshooting I noticed that if I ran the class from MorphX (not batch) that it produced the intended results, but if I ran the class from MorphX in batch it would not. RDP into batch server, stop service, start service, test results, and everything is good to go.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No