Chris,
Thank you for the sample you provided. First, I must apologize for not mentioning that there was additional code in the Click event. I thought I had removed it from my form, but apparently I had not.
I have compare the sample you provided to my form. I noticed several differences between them. First was that you used Designer 7.1 to create your sample, whereas I used Designer 7.0. I do not believe that this will have an impact, although it is possible. Also, in your sample, then click and exit events both need to contain the same "check" code. Your sample has one IF statement in the click event and one IF statement in the exit event. To match my form code, the Click and Exit events together need to contain both IF statements. My form originally contained the code in the Change event also.
i.e. C1[0] has the following code in both its Click, Exit and Change events
if (C1[0].rawValue == 1) then
C1[1].rawValue = 0 //C1[0] and C1[1] can not both be checked
endif
if ((N1.isNull) or (N1.rawValue le 0)) then
$.rawValue = 0 //uncheck if N1 is not positive
endif
and similarly for C1[1].
Based off your sample, I did some more digging and found that the problem is caused by the Change event for the checkboxes. I have removed the code from the Change event and now the form works as desired.
So, if the Change event has NO code, and if the Click and Exit events for the checkboxes have both IF statements the overall behavior (as specified earlier) is identical (and what I am looking for) for both Reader 7.0.5 and 7.0.8.
Now, if I add the IF statements to the Change event (without removing them from Click and Exit), the behavior in Reader 7.0.5 does not change (works as specified). In Reader 7.0.8, the checkboxes can not be unchecked if N1 is blank.
So my questions now become:
1) What has actually changed between Reader 7.0.5 and 7.0.8 (i.e. more detailed description than the generic release notes)?
2) Which one actually exhibits the correct behavior?
3) If this is a change to the event model, is this documented anywhere?
Thanks again,
Ben