VAT2010 - DAT Changes in a 2.60 database

So I have to merge the DAT changes into a 2.60 database of one of my earliest clients. How difficult can that be...

Step 1. The fields.

I choose to add the fields in the 50000 range for simplicity.

2. the forms.

Just add them somewhere...

3. The Code

The VAT Code in Dynamics NAV (Navision) has not changed for ages and ages so you have to believe me that this really is old and new code...

That's it. A 15 minutes job if you have access to the database and the right tools.


Next step... the functional application changes...


Oh, BTW, this is a 100GB database, so the tablechanges might take a while...

Comment List
  • VAT2010 - Report Changes in a 2.60 database

    Hi Marq,

    Thanks for your information.

    I am using Navision 2.60

    Can you help me with the changes on the reports?


  • Miklos, believe me it is flying. :)

    Yes, we use a 4.0 client, not 5sp1.

    2.6 does not have to carry all the detail entries that 3.0 and upwads have. It is a real nice and clean solution.

    I also have some 2.01 and 2.5 customers running on SQL with big databases.

  • 100GB in 2.6? Native or SQL? Either way I just can't imagine it not to be very very slow... unless it's being used with a, say, 5.1 client.

  • I am missing one change to table 254, the key. Because the key to change doesn't exist in the older versions of NAV, i manually added as close a key as i could ( the old versions don't have the field "VAT Registration No." ).

    Done this change for 70 clients.....already shuddering to do the report changes.

  • You take the official .fob you get from microsoft, you import it "merge Existing<-new", and then overwrite your merged .txt file.  This way, you create the field, and have your customizations ... or upgrading a lower-version-database.

    but indeed, you'll have every field merged... .

    It's your choice ...

  • And how do you want to create that field? Do you have a Microsoft License?

    There are a whole bunch of fields added in the newer versions and I don't want all of them to be in this version.

    It is a pretty straigt forward, simple table and anyone doing the upgrade in the future wil understand this.

  • Mark, why are you using field 50000??

    Don't you want to make the future upgrade as easy as possible and use the official field numbers and control ID's instead?