title: Sugar CRM SOAP API - Problems with Auto Incrementing Key and set_entry
body: <p>I've tried the SugarCRM forums for this problem as well, but I was wondering if anyone here has run into a similar issue and would be willing to share the solution.</p>
  
  <p>We are working with the SOAP API for Sugar CRM via the Sugar On Demand system and their appears to be a problem - which at the moment looks very much like a bug.</p>
  
  <p>The Module we trying to work with is the case module. We are running the set_entry action on the case module. It worked the first time we did this, but now it refuses to allow us to enter any more modules. I've checked the log files and made sure that we are submitting anything in the case_number field to over ride this, but whenever we try to add a new case we get the following error showing up in the log:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Query Failed: INSERT into cases set id='bb53030e-0f2f-5787-f403-4dde57cde36e', name='New RMA Request Test', date_entered='2011-05-26 13:37:15', date_modified='2011-05-26 13:37:15', modified_user_id='b1256ced-011d-7c1a-e1f3-4d4004ea4e9a', created_by='b1256ced-011d-7c1a-e1f3-4d4004ea4e9a', description='fjdlkas', deleted='0', assigned_user_id=null, team_id=null, team_set_id='ded0fbb0-c5dc-74ee-0622-4d22eb653a80', type=null, status=null, priority=null, resolution=null, system_id=1, work_log=null, account_id=null: MySQL error 1062: Duplicate entry '2147483647' for key 2</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>This is a bit odd for a few reasons:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>I've confirmed that the corresponding key is auto-incrementing.</li>
  <li>I am not submitting that number anywhere.</li>
  <li>The next auto-increment value when I check the setting in the Studio is actually 2147483648. </li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>Can someone explain what I need to do with the SOAP API to stop it from overriding the auto-increment value on my table?</p>
  
  <p>Edit: I get the same error if I try to add a case via the interface, so I suspect this could be a problem with the CRM configuration itself rather than a SOAP related issue like I originally thought.</p>