I thought that if you had a record open with outstanding changes and someone else updated that record and then you went to save your record, you would get a concurrency violation.
What is happening is I am simulating a scenario where a user has a case open and someone else has a different case open which of course is fine. But someone-else links the cases so a-user's case has its relProjectControl updated through an update query in a table adapter (UPDATE Jobs SET relProjectControl = @newProjectControl WHERE(Control = @control)). Both the cases are now 813 at the database. But not in a-user's memory. So when he closes and saves the case, his relProjectControl is updated back to 0. This is a silent error (or issue, because it doesn't look like it is an error) that no one will know happened. The cases that were just linked are not linked any longer. Why wasn't there an error?
What is happening is I am simulating a scenario where a user has a case open and someone else has a different case open which of course is fine. But someone-else links the cases so a-user's case has its relProjectControl updated through an update query in a table adapter (UPDATE Jobs SET relProjectControl = @newProjectControl WHERE(Control = @control)). Both the cases are now 813 at the database. But not in a-user's memory. So when he closes and saves the case, his relProjectControl is updated back to 0. This is a silent error (or issue, because it doesn't look like it is an error) that no one will know happened. The cases that were just linked are not linked any longer. Why wasn't there an error?