• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


comment last won the day on April 9

comment had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,317 Excellent

About comment

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. If one system can have multiple devices, then you have a one-to-many relationship between Systems and Devices - and you should use a portal to display the related records from Devices on a layout of Systems. A tab control is not really suitable for this - it is a layout-level device meant to switch between objects on the current layout, not between different records. To view the details of one device at a time, see:
  2. That's a very dangerous method, because you can easily identify two (or more) unrelated transactions as duplicates of each other - for example, a credit of $1,000 on January 1, 2017 will be seen as duplicate of a credit for $880 on May 1, 2017. It would be much better to use a relationship with two match fields (one for the date and one for the calculated amount) to identify the duplicates. Even then you might have a problem if you happen to have two separate transactions for the same amount on the same day. Do you not have any other indicator besides the date and the amounts? I am not sure you need to do that. You could have separate tables for the "full" list of transactions and the one with the comments, and then just copy the comments over to the "full" list, using the above-mentioned relationship.
  3. There are many red herrings in your question: the popover, the portal, the relationship with a global field, the virtual list ... Eventually, it all comes down to this: are you trying to display data in (non-global) fields while in Find mode? That's, of course, not possible.
  4. Note that this won't show events that have no employees assigned to them.
  5. See if this helps:
  6. No, that's not how Boolean logic works. There is always only one output, and it's either true or false. In your example, there are 3 propositions (A, B and C) combined into a single statement: A or B and C This statement will be evaluated as follows: Is A true? If yes, the result is true and evaluation ends here; otherwise: Is B true? If not, the result is false, and evaluation ends here; otherwise: Is C true? If yes, the result is true, otherwise it's false. Going back to your specific problem, I am still not sure what rules do you want to apply. Perhaps it would be easier to formulate the conditions for when to show the field, then wrap that in not(). Alternatively, construct a truth table.
  7. I know no such thing, because the formula certainly does return either true or false - so if it won't work the way you expect it to work, it will be for a different reason. In fact, any formula will return a Boolean result when used in a test like this, because Filemaker has a strict set of rules for converting any value to a Boolean. So the real question here is what are the actual rules you want to apply here. I could not get that from your attempt. I seems to me you may be missing the fact that an empty field does not equal to "US".
  8. No. However, you can present a list view of the table joining Events and Employees, sorted by event, with a sub-summary part showing the event details.
  9. Yes, I remember this has come up before too. Unfortunately, I cannot find the threads (I think there were two of those) and I don't remember if a satisfactory solution was ever found.
  10. That's not a Filemaker-related question. I suggest you start a new thread and post what you have so far: the source XML, your current stylesheet, and - no less importantly - the target field mapping.
  11. It's a long thread, and it would be helpful to pinpoint "this" to something more specific. In general, very little has changed since Filemaker first implemented XML import/export in version 6, so I would expect an old XSLT stylesheet to work just as well with the current version of FMP. Of course, this depends on the source XML schema remaining unchanged as well.
  12. Attach an OnObjectExit script trigger to the target field, and have the script set variables to the active selection start and size. Have the inserting script start by restoring the selection in the target field, using the above variables.
  13. This has come up several times, here are two I found quickly:
  14. I am afraid that doesn't answer my question. Perhaps you should expand your original example and include some of those records that need to be subtracted, along with the field that makes them different from the other records (that need to be added).