Field names do not match

[pedrof]

"Sync Failed: Field names pasted from MirrorSync script generation do not match the actual field names for table Sync_Inspection (3). Please re-run the MirrorSync configuration utility and re-paste the script steps."

I have re-run the configuration SEVERAL TIMES.  I keep getting the same error.  Everything else works fine.

Is there a limit on the number of fields in a table?  I have 2305 fields in the Inspection table.

[Jesse Barnum]

There is a limit of 999 fields in a table. That is because we use the FileMaker Let() function to assign variables, and that is limited to 999 variable assignments.

[pedrof]

What can I do?  Can I split the fields over multiple layouts from the same table?  If not, any suggestions?

[Jesse Barnum]

No, that won't work. All I can think about is changing your data model.

[pedrof]

How about multiple MirrorSync configurations, each with a different subset of fields to be sync'd?

Does Mirrorsync only count the fields on the Sync layout, or does it count ALL fields in the table.

[Jesse Barnum]

That won't work. Since they are based on the same underlying table, they will share a modification timestamp, and you will end up in an endless cycle of updates.

[pedrof]

For now, can I just select a subset of fields for 1 configuration.  Will Mirrorsync only count the fields on the sync layout, or does it count ALL the fields in the table regardless of what's on the layout.

[Jesse Barnum]

It only counts the fields on the sync layout, so it should be possible to set up a subset of fields to sync. Also, MirrorSync will ignore calc fields, summaries, globals, and related fields - they don't count towards the 999 limit.

[pedrof]

OK, thanks.  Can you please check and make sure there is absolutely no way for me to deal with more than 999 data fields in a single table.  Changing the data model is certainly doable but a HUGE PAIN.  I have about 300 different inspection layouts based on the INSPECTION table.  Splitting these into 2 or more tables means I have to change the TO's on a lot of fields.

Thanks for all your help.  I really like what you've done with MirrorSync.

[Jesse Barnum]

Hi pedrof - there are no plans either in the short term or medium term to switch away from using the Let() statement for assigning fields in FileMaker, so the only way I could see this 999 limit increasing is if FileMaker Inc. changed that in a future version of FileMaker, and I have no reason to think they will do that. Sorry... it does sound like a huge pain. Please be sure to do plenty of testing first to make sure that MirrorSync will do what you need before switching, I would hate for you to do all that work and then run into some other problem.