Hi @boyclaesen ,
As far as I know, the ODX and TimeXtender versions needs to match always. Regarding updating datasource connectors, there is a list of compatiblity between datasource connector versions and ODX versions. You can find the list here:
I agree on the fact that updating datasource connectors should trigger a check if this is possible with the installed ODX and/or TimeXtender version. So please upvote this idea:
Hi @bas.hopstaken,
Thank you for your reply.
I downloaded and installed the latest version again and now the ODX and TX desktop match (V6718.1).
The connection I use is a CSV connection with provider version 24.0.8963.0. Unfortunately the error remains the same: “Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation.”.
For testing, I added another CVS connection with an older provider version and that one is recognized by the ODX. However, this is not a solution because I will have to remap and rename all the table and columns.
The impact is big because our client has no updated data anymore.
I am not sure how to read article Compatibility of Data Sources and TimeXtender/ODX.Versions you sent..
What else can I try?
Kind Regards, Boy
Hi,
I would raise a support ticket so you can get some assistance more quickly.
Good morning @rory.smith
That’s what I did here right? Or is there another process to create a support ticket?
Kind Regards,
Boy
Hi,
not really - posts here may be converted to a support ticket, but that may take some time. See:
Hi @boyclaesen
As mentioned in the article, “Cdata sources are compatible with all the versions of TimeXtender and ODX listed below, so it is not required to check the compatibility before upgrading Cdata data sources.”
Therefore the version of TX and ODX is not relevant to this data source, since it is a Cdata data source. Rather this seems to be an issue with the latest version of the Cdata CSV provider.
Thank you for submitting a support ticket, I have reproduced the issue and have followed up with Cdata
Hello Christian,
Thank you for your reply. I thought so but I wasn’t sure, thanks for explaining.