comment

Members
  • Content count

    27,670
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    531

Everything posted by comment

  1. That should solve the problem. If not, try reindexing the field.
  2. 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.
  3. You speak in riddles.
  4. Is it possible that the field is defined as a Number field?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.)
  10. Does the attached work for you? Example2.fmp12
  11. 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.
  12. 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?
  13. I don't really see what role the checkboxes are supposed to play here. But to answer what I think may be your original question: Suppose you have a value list named "MyValueList" containing 1000 values. And suppose you have a field named MyCheckBoxfield, formatted as checkboxes using the MyValueList value list. In this situation, the following script step: Set Field [ MyTable::MyCheckBoxfield ; MiddleValues ( ValueListItems ( "" ; "MyValueList" ) ; 600 ; 50 ) ] would check 50 contiguous boxes in the MyCheckBoxfield, starting from box #600.
  14. Sorry, I don't know what you're showing me. I mentioned two possible scenarios, and you haven't said which one (if any) is correct.
  15. Are your records numbered with serial numbers? If yes, then in order to find 50 records starting from record #600, you need to input somehow two values: 600 and 50 (say into two global fields). Then your script (surely you would want to script this), can find records with serial numbers in the range between 600 and 649 (the latter calculated from the two supplied numbers). No checkboxes are required for this. If they are not numbered, then I guess (!) you would want to start by showing all records, then omit the first 599 records, then go to record number 51 and omit the remaining records. No checkboxes are required for this either.
  16. You need to link RecordedDimensions directly to either Dimensions or Gages. If the Instrument field in RecordedDimensions is populated to be the same as the Instrument field in the corresponding Dimension, you could define the relationship as: RecordedDimensions::Instrument = Gages 2::Gage Type where Gages 2 is a new occurrence of the Gages table. Then your value list would be defined to use values from Gages 2::Gage ID, include only related values starting from RecordedDimensions. -- Note: this is a technical answer. I don't really understand what you're doing here, or why. And I have a feeling there is a better way to do it.
  17. It's a simple question. The answer should be one word: the name of the table in which the field is defined.
  18. Let's start with this: in which table is the field you need to populate using this value list. Also, am I correct in assuming that your last picture shows records from the Gages table, with the left column being Gages::Gage Type, and the right column being Gages::Gage ID?
  19. I got lost in your description. It seems you're looking for a conditional value list.
  20. In addition, there is really no good reason to nest Case() within If(); you can do it all in a single call of the Case() function: Case ( IsEmpty ( Sub9First_Semester ) or IsEmpty ( Sub9Second_Semester ) ; Sub9Grade_Point_Average / 2 ; Sub9Final_Grade ≥ "96.5" ; "4" ; Sub9Final_Grade ≥ "92.5" ; "4" ; Sub9Final_Grade ≥ "89.5"; "3.7" ; Sub9Final_Grade ≥ 86.5; "3.3"; Sub9Final_Grade ≥ 82.5 ; "3" ; Sub9Final_Grade ≥ 79.5 ; "2.7" ; Sub9Final_Grade ≥ 76.5 ; "2.3" ; Sub9Final_Grade ≥ 72.5 ; "2" ; Sub9Final_Grade ≥ 69.5 ; "1.7" ; Sub9Final_Grade ≥ 66.5 ; "1.3" ; Sub9Final_Grade ≥ 64.9 ; "1" ; Sub9Final_Grade < 64 ; "0" ) Note also that specifying an empty default result is redundant.
  21. What type are your movie files? And are they embedded in the container field, or are they stored externally?
  22. I am not sure what you mean by "API improvements". The runtime limitations are listed here: http://www.filemaker.com/help/16/fmp/en/#page/FMP_Help%2Fdifferences-runtime-application.html%23
  23. Layouts show found sets, not related sets (we have portals to do that). The simple way to show the enrolled students is to find them. Or use the Go to Related Record [] script step to create a found set of related records only. Note that you do not need have a dedicated layout for the "other" occurrence of the Contacts table; you can reuse an existing layout of the "main" occurrence.