Unlock a world of possibilities! Login now and discover the exclusive benefits awaiting you.
Hi, A colleague of mine has swapped computers and moved around this way and that, and recently got the 'exceeded maximum number of document recoveries' message. She is only using a basic qvw on her desktop and personal edition to transform excel files for uploading into the database. Presently, she is having to rebuild the qvw from scratch every other day or so to complete this task and we're not sure why now.
Is there a known glitch on this front? Would uninstall/reinstall, and purge/rebuild of existing qvw solve it, or do we need to contact people and do stuff? The qvw she uses is easy enough to rebuild- she's just copypasting script into a fresh qvw file and dropping a tablebox in place, but rather not have to do that for unknown reasons every other day.
We understand about the document recovery limit keeping people from bypassing license stuff, but pretty sure it shouldn't stop people from using qlikviews they built from scratch on their desktop after the fact, right?
Hi Steve,
There is no way to recover these with out you licensing her DeskTop software.
Bill
We're not worried about recovering documents now. It's a rebuilt document that works the day it's built and gives this message again the day or two after it's built. She's rebuilt a new qlikview today to do her tasks, but might get the max recoveries allowed message again Monday or Tuesday if the pattern holds, and have to rebuild it again another day. It could be changes we're not aware of that IT folks made on our side and maybe the issue will stop now they're done making their changes.
Are other people opening her documents?
Bill
We've confirmed it wasn't that since the file is just on her desktop. What she'll do now is make sure no previous versions are anywhere on her desktop, and rebuild a new one with a different file name, to see if the previous new one just got confused with the one she was locked out of.
Thanks and correct answer coming to you for your time. In principal it was some kind of mixup on our part I think. 2 helpful gets the same credit as one correct and is more accurate I think. Thanks again for your help!