comment

Members
  • Content count

    27,672
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    532

comment last won the day on May 27

comment had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,346 Excellent

About comment

  • Rank
    consultant

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. I'd say you have a lot of catching up to do. I suggest you read the "Migration Foundations and Methodologies" white paper that explains the major differences between version 6 and 7. That's when the real revolution occurred - the rest are just upgrades, IMHO.
  2. So why don't you implement your mockup as a popover containing 48 buttons, all running the same script with a different parameter? For simplicity, let's say the parameter is just a number between 1 and 48. Then your script could do: Set Field [ YourTable::Year ; AnyTable::gYear ] Set Field [ YourTable::Month ; Div ( Get (ScriptParameter) - 1 ; 4 ) + 1 ] Set Field [ YourTable::Week ; Mod ( Get (ScriptParameter) - 1 ; 4 ) + 1 ] where gYear is a the (global) field shown at the top of your picker. Well, then you don't really need a Month field and could make this even simpler.
  3. That should solve the problem. If not, try reindexing the field.
  4. I am afraid not. Please describe exactly how your relationship is defined, and how your portal is filtered. Then, in the two records that produce an unexpected result, provide the exact contents of all the relevant fields (the relationship's match fields and the fields used in the portal filter's formula). In general, if one field contains an item and another field contains a list of items, then the two fields are not equal* - even if the one item is common to both. Use the FilterValues() function instead. -- (*) For calculation purposes; they will be considered as matching for the purposes of a relationship.
  5. Is it possible that the field is defined as a Number field?
  6. I don't know the answer to that and I don't know how one would go about measuring such thing. However, I have reasons to believe that hiding an object is more efficient than formatting it. If the code is well written, then a hidden object would be taken out of the rendering queue altogether - while the conditionally formatted object has to be rendered in context.
  7. That would be the expected behavior if Grade_Level is defined as a Text field. -- P.S. Please do us the favor of formatting your calculations and placing them inside a code block when posting here.
  8. You can check if any of the related values is "Rejected" by testing for: IsEmpty ( FilterValues ( "Rejected" ; List ( Related::Field ) ) ) Note that the portal has nothing to do with this. A portal is a layout object that shows related records - and it can be filtered to show only some of the related records. The calculation works at the data level and looks at the entire related set.
  9. AFAIK this is a test-only license and you are not allowed to use it in production. If you're not taking the Mac with you, then what device do you expect to use for the remote access? If it's not a computer with FMP installed on it, then your only options are WebDirect or FM Go.
  10. What makes you think a repeating field would provide a better user interface - or better anything - than a portal? (I am afraid I did not understand your description, but I am not sure it's important that I do.)
  11. Does the attached work for you? Example2.fmp12
  12. I am afraid not. I could not follow this at all. I don't understand what your tables represents in real life (names like FTIME and STEPS are meaningless to me, and the fact that your screenshots use different names only adds to the confusion), and how they are related (or why they are related the way they are). And I don't understand in which table are the times you want to sum. I am not even sure from which table you want to sum them. It sounds like you want to have a subtotal in each portal row? In such case, you must have the start and end dates within the table shown in the portal (STEP???), either as calculation fields or to begin with, and use them in the relationship to the table where the times are. But that's just a wild guess.
  13. I find this very confusing. Which one of your tables is the table of People? The Active field is in Table A, but the CalcNumber field is in Table B - so what exactly does "matching the CalcNumber" mean?