Leaderboard

LaRetta was one of the most fiercely loving and loyal friends I've ever had, despite never having had the pleasure to meet her in person. I'm so blessed to have worked with her until the end. She was unashamedly opinionated and caring, about people, justice, and about our craft. She sent me this passage from Barbara Kingsolver late last year: And she followed it with: I love you LaRetta, and miss you dearly. Guess I'm a little hokey too. ❤️ Your friend, Josh

Here is another way you could do this. It uses conditional formatting to identify the exact items that cause the conflict with other orders. Again, more work is required if you want to see exactly which overlapping order has the offending item, but it might not be worth the trouble. BookingItemsConflict.fmp12

Is it safe to assume the context is an Order with a portal to LineItems? If so, I would do something like the attached. Re your calculation, I don't understand the logic it attempts to implement. And I don't think it can be done by calculation alone. Depending on the format you need this, there may be a much simpler alternative: sort your line items by ProductID and use a summary field that counts them with restart. This will work if you print your orders from the LineItems (as you should), as well as in a sorted portal. SimilarChildrenNumerator.fmp12

Databases work best with regular structures. That's not to say that an inconsistency such as this cannot be accommodated, but it won't be ideal. A lot depends on what do you actually intend to produce out of the data entered. I would probably opt for a "star" join table of Roles joining Staff (or StaffAssignments) to both Districts and Schools. And if a role can apply to multiple schools in a single district I would consider using a checkbox field to select the applicable schools - provided that it wouldn't conflict with some reporting ability you may want to provide. Please note that we are discussing an ERD, not the relationships graph. That will be a whole another issue.

Just for fun, you could also do: While ( [ values = Substitute ( Yourfield ; ", " ; ¶ ) ; n = ValueCount ( values ) ; result = "" ] ; n ; [ result = GetValue ( values ; n ) & Choose ( Mod ( n ; 2 ) ; ¶ ; ", " ) & result ; n = n - 1 ] ; result ) But this one will have a trailing carriage return, unless you change the output line to something like: Left ( result ; Length ( result ) - 1 ) or: Substitute ( result & ¶ ; "¶¶" ; "" )

To find only the exact value of of "Ice" you can make your script do: ... Enter Find Mode [ ] Set Field [ YourTable::YourField; "\"¶" & $searchValue & "¶\"" ] Perform Find [ ] where the $searchValue variable contains the text "Ice". But again, this is actually looking for "¶Ice¶" (the searchValue surrounded by returns) and will not find records where "Ice" is the first or the last value (without a trailing return). If your values are sorted by the SortValues() function, then you already have a trailing return and you only need to add a leading one. There is no need for double returns. Yes. The list field will function as a multikey, which means any single value will be matched: https://help.claris.com/en/pro-help/content/creating-relationships.html?Highlight=multikey Yes, if you want to have the global field in the same table (it can be in any table).

Gee, I wonder why no one has thought of that in 4 years. Let alone explain exactly how to migrate the data to a normalized structure...

I don't understand your question, especially this part: It seems you have a parent-child relationship, with DeliveryNotes being the child table. In such arrangement, there should be a foreign key field in the child table holding the parent record's unique ID value. There should be no fields in the parent table that refer to the parent's children. To display the parent's children on the parent layout you would use a portal. This is the standard practice for a parent-child relationship. If you have some sort of a special requirement that isn't covered by this then please explain in more detail. For example, if you wish to isolate a specific child record, you could click on it in the portal (thereby setting a global field or variable to its unique ID) and then use a 2nd relationship or a filtered one-row portal to display it. P.S. Please use the standard font when posting. P.P.S Please update your profile to reflect your version and OS so that we know what you can use.

Yes. Every script has its own parameter that must be passed to it explicitly when the script is called. To pass its own parameter to a subscript, the calling script would need to do: Perform Script [ “abc”; Parameter: Get ( ScriptParameter ) ] Keep in mind that a subscript does not "know" it's a subscript. It runs independently and does not inherit anything from the calling script.

This is a little too much to take in all at once. Consider simplifying the issue and/or breaking it up to individual points. Speaking in general, the script parameter remains constant throughout the life of the script, while a script variable can be defined and redefined at any point. If you want to export a file using a variable as the file's name, and the file's name is supposed to contain the count of exported records, then of course you will want to define that variable as close to the export as possible and not before any event that can modify the current found set. HTH.

In MBS FileMaker Plugin 15.3 we have a Format button on macOS for the data viewer's detail view. If the data is XML or JSON, we can use the format and colorize functions: JSON.Format & JSON.Colorize, XML.Format & XML.Colorize. Let's say you have some variables in the data viewer with XML or JSON content. When you double click the text, you get a new window showing the detail. Here we find the Format button added by MBS Plugin. Press the button and it will format the content: If we get a parse error or the content is not XML/JSON, we beep. If you click OK, the formatted text is stored in the variable. If you press cancel, the unformatted text stays in the variable. Please try the feature and let us know what you think. Available for macOS in MBS FileMaker Plugin 15.3.

Just to comment on this line of thinking: “I have a script that I would like to use in multiple "similar" situations”. Be aware that what seems economical can lead to highly conditional scripts that are difficult to maintain or change without risk. Separate scripts without much indirection or abstraction are more easy to maintain and troubleshoot. Consider the trade off you’re making.

You cannot use a variable to specify the field in the Edit Find Request window. But a find request can also be constructed through setting fields - and then you can use the script parameter to select which field to use, similar to what we discussed only recently here: https://fmforums.com/topic/110860-script-problem-remove-container-file-from-a-record-trying-to-transition-to-json-to-pass-multiple-parameters/#findComment-494081

As you can see from the release notes, folders for custom functions have been implemented: https://help.claris.com/en/pro-release-notes/content/index.html

https://www.fmcomparison.com

There are various tools that can compare DDRs such as: BaseElements https://baseelements.com/ CrossCheck http://www.fm-crosscheck.com FMDiff http://fmdiff.com/ FMperception https://www.fmperception.com/ InspectorPro https://www.beezwax.net/products/inspectorpro-8 I have no recommendation to make since I don't use any of them. You can also use general tools for comparing XML documents (either DDR or the output of Save a Copy as XML). The result may be more difficult to read but it could be all you need for a one-time task such as you describe. Oh, and for fields only you could simply compare the results of ExecuteSQL() querying the FileMaker_BaseTableFields table.

I don't know if that's a good analogy to your situation. Anyway the answer here is yes, at least WRT interference. They would simply login as different users and their privilege set would deny them access to any records other than those tagged by their account name. Then it's up to the developer to prevent situations where a bunch of records labeled <<no access>> would crop up - such as replacing the Show All Records command with a bogus find (any find will automatically omit records for which the user has no access). And there may be other details to consider e.g. serial numbering of records. Maybe not: https://support.claris.com/s/article/New-FileMaker-data-migration-tool?language=en_US

Actually, it's quite the opposite: you would have a List layout to show a bunch of records (typically non-editable). Then you use a popover or a card window to drill into a specific record for more details and/or editing. It's functionally similar to list-detail layout but you have more space to work with, since the detail temporarily conceals the list.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. You are not alone in that wish, it's been often suggested (usually as a type of a layout part). As a side note: while I often switch between form and table view in solutions for my own use, I would almost always create separate layouts in solutions designed for others. So there would be a button for "detailed view" on the list layout and a "back to list" button on the form layout. Also keep in mind the possibilities offered by list-detail layouts, popovers and card windows.

When I read this, I was taken aback: I thought surely a button cannot override the layout setup and allow access to a view which the developer has disabled?? But you are right, it does do exactly that. I consider this a bug. I think you have no choice other than to customize the bar for its specific layout. It's not like we have the option to share objects across layouts anyway.

That's not going to work. Exactly. A button activates only by tabbing into it. Again, your hunch is correct. You don't need to add the selected button's object name to the script parameter. In fact, the buttons do not need to have object names at all (at least not for this). You only need to add a recognizable value to the script parameter of each button. It could be as simple as 1, 2 and 3 or perhaps something more explicit - say "current", "found" and "all". Then extract this value from the script parameter and use it to branch your script.

The simple method is to open a new window, isolate the current record and do the export. Then close the current window to return to the original found set. Alternatively you could switch to a layout that has the fields you want in the order you want them and do Save Records as Excel from there. But if that's all such layout would be used for, it's hardly worth the effort.

From what I can see the problem is that you are passing the container field's value instead of its name. Try defining the script parameter along the lines of = JSONSetElement ( "" ; [ "container_field_name" ; GetFieldName ( document::document_file ) ; JSONString ] ; [ "container_file_name" ; document::document_filename ; JSONString ] ) You could also get by with: JSONSetElement ( "" ; [ "container_field_name" ; "document::document_file" ; JSONString ] ; [ "container_file_name" ; document::document_filename ; JSONString ] ) but this would break if you renamed the container field.

Just a random thought: Whether a field is optimized for static or interactive content is a matter of formatting the specific instance of the field on a specific layout. You could have two separate layouts showing the same field optimized differently. Or two different instances of the same field on different panels of a tab/slide control. Or even just hiding one of them conditionally.

Not really. Your formula for constructing the JSON is correct and if the referenced field contains the text "Active" you should be getting the result you expect. Is it possible that the two tests were performed from different records?

It won't happen in the 1st file until you populate the Data__lxn field in the newly created child records. It will happen in the 2nd file, but only after you commit the record (that's a good thing: you don't want portal records to fly up and down while you're still working on them).

For the next version of MBS FileMaker Plugin in 15.3 we add the Window.SetRoundCorners function to provide round corners. At the recent Vienna Calling conference a developer asked if we can get the edges of the card in FileMaker to be round. And yes, that is indeed possible. Once the card is shown, the MBS Plugin can find the card window and apply round corners to it. This even works on Windows: This seems to work fine in FileMaker Pro on macOS and Windows. It does of course not work for WebDirect or FileMaker Go. To add the round corners, you simply call our plugin function Window.SetRoundCorners just after showing the card. The plugin finds the front window and applies them. Here is an example: Show card with round rectangle: New Window [ Style: Card ; Name: "Card" ; Using layout: “Tabelle” ; Height: 400 ; Width: 600 ] Set Variable [ $r ; Value: MBS("Window.SetRoundCorners"; 0; 12) ] Please try with 15.3 plugin and let us know how well it works for you.

This file shows how I would approach this using the aforementioned method of filtering a portal to display only unique values. A few notes: For simplicity, I have left out the Positions and Subjects tables and used meaningful values for PositionID and SubjectID in the Assignments join table instead. This has no impact on the calculation formulae that need to be used. To some extent, this is a cop-out: I believe I could have done without the cCombinedKey field in the Assignments table. But it would have taken some time and - perhaps more importantly - the formula used for portal filtering would be much more difficult to understand. A note about your setup: I don't understand why you need the Levels table. Does it hold any other information besides an ID and the level? It seems to me that a custom value list of these levels would be quite sufficient. The other thing that puzzles me is the checkbox of these levels shown in your screenshot. It looks like users actually select multiple levels for each unique combination of Position and Subject, and your script breaks these down to individual records. And now you are asking how to combine them back to the original form? Wouldn't it be easier just to store the data as entered by the user? Link to the file (expires in 24 hours): https://wormhole.app/3D9xaz#GF8aSO2FXKXPIp8mfOLBkQ

Did you notice that MBS FileMaker Plugin 15.2 includes a new feature to add keyboard shortcuts for the result data types for a formula? If you visit the manage database dialog, you can use keyboard shortcuts to pick data types for a field: Text ⌘ T Number ⌘ N Date ⌘ D Time ⌘ T Timestamp ⌘ M Container ⌘ R Calculation ⌘ L Summary ⌘ S If you define the formula, you get a dialog like the one shown above. The MBS Plugin looks for the popup menu on the bottom left and adds the same shortcuts for the data types. If it finds the menu, it adds the shortcuts to the menu entries. This way you can press e.g. command-T to pick text. Just a little convenience, but our clients asked us for it. Enjoy!

This is a very simple arrangement. The left-most portal, where you select the category, is a portal that shows records from the current table (Category) - a.k.a a list-detail layout: https://help.claris.com/en/pro-help/content/creating-portals-list-detail.html Selecting a category in this portal causes the corresponding record to become the current record. And the portal to the Product table shows only records that are related to current record.

🕯️ I was informed today of the passing of @LaRetta this past February. Thank you LaRetta for the many years of sage wisdom and insights to our community you will be missed!

Sad news to hear. She was kind, sharp as a tack and very funny. I was fortunate to have worked with her. She will be missed.

This is indeed a great loss to the FM community. No one can equal her sharp eye for mistakes and her ability to pull a great idea out of a bucket of mediocre ones. Above all, her good spirits and great sense of humor made it a pleasure to collaborate with her. It was a privilege to know her.

Hello all, We're currently testing with FM Starting Point 24.0x5 USS and having trouble locating the best place to modify the default window size setting(s). Which script(s) should we be modifying to increase the default window size?

I need to correct something I wrote earlier: This implies that in normal circumstances the two tests should return the same result and that the only difference is the unnecessary complexity added by using PatternCount() instead of a direct comparison. That is not the case. Let's assume that both of the compared fields are calculation fields returning a result of type Date. And that the date format used by the file is m/d/y, with no leading zero for the month. Now, let's have an example where DateA is Feb 2, 2025 and DateB is Dec 2, 2025. These two are different dates and if the comparison is performed in the date domain: DateB = DateA the result will be False. But the suggested comparison: PatternCount ( DateB ; DateA ) will start by converting the dates to Text, and then: PatternCount ( "12/2/2025" ; "2/2/2025" ) will return 1 (True). In addition to a false positive, it is also possible to get a false negative if one or both of the fields contains user-entered data which may or may not have leading zeros.

That's actually wrong. You may not notice it's wrong if your date is never a Sunday, but in such case your formula will return the date of the following Monday - i.e. the starting day of the next week. The correct formula to use would be: date - DayOfWeek ( date - 1 ) + 1 ; I don't see that I made any suggestion regarding portal filtering - other than to warn you that it will get slow as your number of records increases. I think that could be simplified to: IsEmpty ( Employee::gFilter ) or Time::Week_Start = Employee::gFilter If that doesn't work the same way for you then there is something wrong with the data in one (or both) of the fields.

I don't know (I am currently stuck at v.18). But I wouldn't be surprised if it's still the same.

I see the same thing (in version 18). This is apparently a bug. But the solution is simple: do not go back to the script. And if you do, do not click OK. Or switch it back to 'File' before clicking OK. Or do not save the script changes.

I am not sure what exactly you are asking or what to look at in the attached file. From what I can see, the JSON in the GRANT::JSON field in the 4th record of your file is properly formatted - at least by the rules that Filemaker uses for formatting JSON (there is no official standard for this and you may see various online formatters return different results). Well, Grant in your JSON is also an array. The keys of any array are the numerical indexes of the array's child elements. The District array is a grandchild of Grant, and you will see it listed if you look at JSONListKeys ( GRANT::JSON ; "Grant[0]" ) or JSONListKeys ( GRANT::JSON ; "Grant[1]" ) and so on.

Mmm... maybe I spoke too soon. Now that I have implemented the suggested solution myself, I notice a nasty "jump" as the popover settles in its place. Still, it's something worth learning - and the flaw may be be less noticeable in your situation where you need less padding. The great advantage here is that it's all done just by styling the popover object components (popover, popover content area and padding), with no need for extra buttons, scripts, script triggers and what have you. PopoverContentArea.fmp12

@fbugeja I notice you have cross-posted this question on Claris Community. This doesn't happen very often, but the answer you received there is better than any of the other options mentioned here. It may not be easy to understand at first glance, but I think it's worth spending the necessary time to learn it.

What you ask for is impossible to do precisely. The reason for this is that the popover area is always positioned with its center aligned with the popover button. If your button is positioned to the right of the center of the area you want to cover, there will be either a slit exposed on the left side, or an additional band covering stuff on the right side. Or a little bit of both, as you can see in the attached file where I have adjusted the right-side popover to the approximate dimensions. There are other methods that would allow precise positioning of the covering area, such as a card window (already mentioned) or a popover with invisible button that you pop open with a script, or even a slide control. AUSCOIN+.fmp12

I would use a card window to ensure precise sizing and placement . You’ll find how to do so by referring to Dan Smith’s card positioning demo file here.

That's why I said "ideally". Denormalization is a necessary evil, not a goal.

Hey Ocean, Great question. Check out our documentation on resetting the audit log here. If you're interested, here's the explanation: The audit log keeps a record of past changes to allow MirrorSync to merge conflicts, however it can get huge, up to a maximum of 1 TB. The solution is to use the configuration client to reset it. Log in, right click the configuration, mouse over Reset SyncData and click "Only AuditLog". Despite its size, the audit log isn't critical to MirrorSync's function; you won't need to replace your spoke or even expect much longer syncs after you wipe it out. You may not even notice the downside: that MirrorSync won't be able to merge some record changes after you delete the audit log. However, after resetting this problem will quickly resolve itself; after a few days of normal use it'll be as though nothing happened, and you'll have your ~80GB of space back. Hope that clears things up! - Adam

Testing

The term you're thinking of might be, not magic key, but 'multi-key.' It can indeed be quite useful, not only for going to related records, but displaying those records in a portal.

Here's a simple method to duplicate the found set: Unsort Records Set Variable [ $n; Value:Get ( FoundCount ) ] Loop Set Variable [ $i; Value:$i + 1 ] Exit Loop If [ $i > $n ] Go to Record/Request/Page [ $i ] [ No dialog ] Duplicate Record/Request // perform changes to the duplicated record End Loop

That makes it more difficult, since you cannot use the UniqueValues() function. See if the attached demo makes sense. In the real implementation, the value list would be defined to use values from the Customers table, of course. And the body part of the report would be removed (I kept it in just to check that the results are correct). Likewise the sub-sorting by CustomerID. You could probably do something similar with ExecuteSQL(), but then you would have to think how to present the result. CountUniqueInGroup.fmp12

Does the attached test work for you? InsertFromRedirectURL.fmp12