Re: Calculated value dilemma

Evan Keel wrote:

>
> "Tony Toews [MVP]" <ttoews_at_telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> news:ijls74hco85ernlcubpedveu1cm6dblmi0_at_4ax.com...
>> Rainboy <mark.rainbow_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >As keeping historically accurate info is important, 'hard-coding' the
>> >balance in the table seems to me like it might be the most appropriate
>> >solution,
>>
>> Put the balance on the parent table. But also create a method of double
> checking
>> that number by adding up the individual transactions, telling the user
> there is a
>> problem, log that problem so they can bring it to your attention at a
> later date and
>> then fix the balance. Also create this method before even coding the
> logic to
>> update the balance. Thus you can use it as part of your testing.
>>
>> Tony

> Can't wait to see the responses to this.

Oddly this is one of the first such postings of Tony's I don't really have a problem with. In fact I entirely approve of the idea of imposing integrity constraints before coding. My main gripe is that it is something of a recipe and although the business process it describes is potentially sound, I wouldn't have assumed any favorite process of mine would automatically suit everyone else.

If the OP notices that and considers it, he might be OK.

-- 
Roy