I have 3 tables in Excel 2016 worksheet. Tables 1 and 3 are connected to SQL database and Table 2 has a XML Map to import and display XML-files. Created a simple mockup to better illustrate this.
When loading data, each autoexpand fine and push header of the table beneath downwards to make room for extra rows (while maintaining the same gap between tables).
However, I also refresh data when tables are already filled and there's a difference between Tables 1 & 3 (SQL connections), compared to Table 2 (XML Map). In case data refresh decreases the row count in a table, SQL tables also correctly "pull" the table beneath it upwards and always maintain the same distance between the last row and header of the next table.
This is where Table 2 differs for some reason. While it correctly "pushes" the next table to maintain the same distance, it will not "pull" the next table upwards in case XML import reduces the row count in Table 2, leaving blank areas between the end of Table 2 and header of Table 3.
The gaps between tables would remain the same in case the sequence would be Table 1 -> Table 3 -> Table 2, however I'm preferring to present data in the other order (I have a separate named range consisting of all 3 tables and I'm emailing the result over VBA - this order is better for data presentation). Frankly, it's not ideal to leave XML Map table as the last one either, as this just pushes the named range also down on to empty rows, creating a blank area at the end of the email (which is obviously a better option than a big blank area between tables).
Could it be that I'm missing some setup or is it just a feature that the XML Mapped table has?
When loading data, each autoexpand fine and push header of the table beneath downwards to make room for extra rows (while maintaining the same gap between tables).
However, I also refresh data when tables are already filled and there's a difference between Tables 1 & 3 (SQL connections), compared to Table 2 (XML Map). In case data refresh decreases the row count in a table, SQL tables also correctly "pull" the table beneath it upwards and always maintain the same distance between the last row and header of the next table.
This is where Table 2 differs for some reason. While it correctly "pushes" the next table to maintain the same distance, it will not "pull" the next table upwards in case XML import reduces the row count in Table 2, leaving blank areas between the end of Table 2 and header of Table 3.
The gaps between tables would remain the same in case the sequence would be Table 1 -> Table 3 -> Table 2, however I'm preferring to present data in the other order (I have a separate named range consisting of all 3 tables and I'm emailing the result over VBA - this order is better for data presentation). Frankly, it's not ideal to leave XML Map table as the last one either, as this just pushes the named range also down on to empty rows, creating a blank area at the end of the email (which is obviously a better option than a big blank area between tables).
Could it be that I'm missing some setup or is it just a feature that the XML Mapped table has?
