Jump to content

Adri Oosterwijk

Members
  • Content Count

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Adri Oosterwijk

  • Rank
    member
  • Birthday 03/03/1964

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Reeuwijk, The Netherlands
  1. Hi all, Probably this is a simple issue but I'm lost. In my database is a field called "Row" In this field there are values such as: Sl 1-1 Sl 1-2 Sl 1-3 Sl 1-3a Sl 1-4 Sl 1-5 and so on. I set a variable $$CHECKROW with a value form one table and the find is performed in another table. When I do a search in a script for $$CHECKROW ( value Sl 1-3a ) it is working great. Only one record found wich is matching the criteria. However when I perform this find for Sl 1-3 it also finds Sl 1-3a and that is not ok. In the find dialog I can set
  2. Understood. I will rework it. I'm sure that I'm gonna solve it using your input. Many thanks and I let you know. Reagards, adri
  3. Forgive my poor English, thats what I meant. I think. The values in the graves table are the complete Numbers or codes for the graves. A complete gravenumber is a concatenation of a section, an area, a row and a number. The Row number will be calculated (section & area & rownumber) in the rows table and the complete gravenumber (complete rownumber & gravenumber) in the graves table. Example: Section = SL Area = 1 Row = 1 Rownumber = Sl 1-1 Gravenumber = 1, 2, 3 Complete gravenumer is: Sl 1-1-1 Sl 1-1-2 Sl 1-1-3 Do we have the sa
  4. Oops, I have to rework my db. Ok, as that is what it takes. When I make the choice to do it the way I did (one table for all separte pieces of data to create a gravenumber) I thought it was the right way. I was expecting some difficulties but I was sure to overcome them. Sadly, this is not the case. I'm gonna rework this part of my solution and I hope that it will work. I was aming to get a result of -> Count all positions in a row ( a row is unique for a cementary by relationship and ) and substract (is this the right term?) the number of reservations and graves taken by funer
  5. Hi Comment, Thank you for helping me out. I will try to explain. Every cementary have areas, every area have sections and avery section have rows. "Rij naam" is a fieldname and is a aggregation of a areacode, sectioncode, and row code. In the table "Rij naam" ( row name ) is a textfield filled wit the formula Section & " " & area &"-"& Row ( translated ). A position is a grave. In every row ( Rij naam ) there are one or more graves available. So the field "TELLING_GRAVEN" is the sum of the graves available for a given row. There is no table where "Rij naam"
  6. Hi all, I have a three table situation. 1. Tablename "Begraafplaatsen" 2. Tablename "Graven" 3. Tablename "Reserveringen" In "Begraafplaatsen" is a pKey field begraafplaatsen::id. In "Graven" is a fKey field id_begraafplaatsen. This fKey field exist in "Reserveringen as well. There is a one-to-many relationship between begraafplaatsen::id and graven::id_begraafplaatsen to show only the relatedvalues of a specific record in "begraafplaatsen". This works fine. In Table "Graven" Is a field "Rij naam". The values in this field exist more than once because for every "Rij
  7. Thanks that does the trick. Even more simple as where I came up with.
  8. Hi all, I've created in my solution a portal for navigation purposes (see attached images). For the user it is clear on wich record they are when the portal row is highlighted. And beside that it is visually atractive. This kind of highlligting do we see on websites all the time. For this highlighting I'm using conditional formatting. The formula is: If ( Table::id = TablePortal::id ; RGB ( 204 ; 204 ; 153 ) ; Self ) where TablePortal is a TO from table with a cartesian relationship. A strange behavior occur. When I enter a number in the displayed field on the detail
  9. Hi Comment, I feel so stupid but for some reason I am unable to get it to work. Is the join table a real table or just a TO? My general Items file has a relationship with another table (license) so the General Items can be added at the top of the chain so to speak. I have set up the relationships in several different ways (even with an extra TO GeneralItems 2) but one way or the other it will not work as I want (or as you described). Can it be caused by the fact that my data is separated from my app (UI and logic) file? I am unable to create a lookup. I am unable to make an unique re
  10. Hi Comment, I have implemented your suggestion and it works fine when I'm adding a record. The validation is handled by the code you provided. I only had to make sure the used List function evaluates every time a record is added (commited) or deleted. I extended the script so that if the desired value exist in the general products table the corresponding fieldvalues are added into the LocationsProducts table. Works fine. However there is one problem. When I am adding a record to the LocationsProducts table and the UniqueName field (FieldName is Code in the pictures) validat
  11. Thank you for your reply. Searching the forum to move forward on this problem the thought of a join table came up already. Never used it so its a challenge (again). I will try to work this out. I will let you know. Thanks for all the time so far.
  12. The FM fieldvalidation is on a extra field wich concatenates the value of the ParentFieldValue and the UniqueNameValue Otherwise we are not able to allow duplicate UniqueNameValues in deifferent parent sets. Yes, that is what I meant. I will try to describe it in a clear way. Imagine this: We are in browse mode working with parent Red and want to add the value Alpha. We enter it in the field UniqueName. The validation script returns OK and accepts it (it is does not exists in the "group" Red.) The solution checks if the value Alpha exists in
  13. If you are at at parent record 'Red" and you want to add the child "Alpha" it is only possible when it is NOT present in the current set of parent "Red". When it does exist then the validationscript stops it all (this is the script you helped me with at the top of this topic). It is only possible to add this record "Alpha" when it does not exist in the parent 'Red" but does is Blue or Green. When it has the same values in each field (or it exist only once) the solution has to add it automaticly. When it has the same UniqueName but not exact the same fieldvalues the solution has to provide the
  14. Thank you for your quick replay. No, I don't want to allow duplicate values for the same parent. I want the possibility that if a value exist in the child table that it can be added to another parent. So the duplicate fieldvalues will be allowed in the child table. However those duplicates exists only at the level of some fields. Strictly speaking are the (visible) duplicates unique records with their own unique identifier. If there are more "identical" records, all existing to different parents I only want to use or display one of them. Sorry I wasn't clear (again) I hope it
  15. Sorry for this late reply, but I've been away for a while. What I want to accomplish is this: Validation is OK so far. I want to extend the script with the following: When the field UniqueName exists one time in the child table (but with another Parent record) the Fieldvalues are copied into the record I'm adding. The user is able to edit the record. When the UniqueName exists more then one time the field values in those records must be compared (UniqueName, Value etc. If they are the same in the records the values are copied in the record I'm adding. When they ar not
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.