Jump to content

Angus McKinnon

Members
  • Content Count

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Angus McKinnon

  • Rank
    member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Glasgow, Scotland

FileMaker Experience

  • Skill Level
    Intermediate
  • FM Application
    15 Advanced

Platform Environment

  • OS Platform
    Mac
  • OS Version
    10.13 High Sierra

Recent Profile Visitors

2,018 profile views
  1. One of my Covid-lockdown projects is adding some inventory control to our Filemaker solution. We started with this some time ago, and most of our rental items have got barcoded ID tags. The management of that has lagged somewhat behind. We have wireless barcode scanners, and one of the tasks I have in mind is verifying that items listed in the database exist in real life. (I suspect that some labels have been put on without records being created) In theory, it shouldn't be difficult for someone to work their way along a bay of shelves blipping barcodes whilst a looping script runs i
  2. Just returning to this thread with an update. It all seems to have gone swimmingly. There were actually two relationships that needed "fixed" in this way, and everything seems to be working as it should on the new serialised match field. Thanks again to comment for his input. Using "Replace Field Contents" saved me some scripting which would have had no long-term benefits.
  3. That's great - thanks. Good to know I'm not barking up the wrong tree, and I'll definitely have a backup before kicking off the process. Apologies for the font - I'd written up the post in Word whilst offline, then copied and pasted over. Slightly ironic since one of my other housekeeping tasks at the moment is adding TextFormatRemove(self) to some of my fields to stop my users from causing similar problems...
  4. I’m using some of the current downtime to tidy up some of the murkier corners of my Filemaker solution. One of the problems in my crosshairs is a badly-chosen match field that I want to replace. The relationship in question is between a catalogue table (a list of all the stock items that we have available) and an Order_items table, which is the line items on customer invoices. Foolishly, I chose to use a website URL as the match field for the relationship between the two. At the time, all of the items in the catalogue had a matching page on a website, and it was by defini
  5. That's incredibly helpful - glad to know that I'm not the only one hitting this kind of challenge. (Although the other poster described it far more accurately than me) I've downloaded the demo file, and to be honest that will be enough to give to the administrator to experiment with. It'll certainly save a chunk of time compared to the manual method. I could probably find a way of integrating the capability into our main solution (and being able to automatically copy in the totals from the unreconciled orders) but it's overkill unless they are going to use the core functionality.
  6. I've had an interesting challenge thrown in my direction by one of our administrators. Part of their job is to reconcile credit card payments that we have received, against orders that are in Filemaker. 98% of the transactions are simple to reconcile, but the remainder can be problematic. This is often caused by other staff not marking FM orders as having been paid, but nonetheless it still needs picked through. The problem is compounded by the way we receive card payments into our bank account, there are usually a number of payments lumped together for the day(s) in question. This
  7. The database that I maintain at the moment has a simple text field for “Order Notes” which is used for various miscellaneous notes that don’t fit into any of the other fields. It’s a bit of a “catch all” receptacle. A couple of problems have emerged recently. One is that staff have been relying on notes that have been written quite some time ago, treating it as “gospel” when in some cases it has been superseded. What I’d like to do is have an indication on the field of when the information was input. It wouldn’t be hard to add a timestamp that is changed when the field is updated. T
  8. Thanks for that link - seems like a very sensible way to tackle it. I'm imaging that the best way to proceed is have a script set variables from the summary values out of the filtered portals (using GetLayoutObjectAttribute) and use that to populate the summary table. Let's see how I get on...
  9. Here’s the scenario. I’ve got a “Monthly Report” layout in my database, which has a collection of portals showing There is a “Monthly Report” table which is linked to Orders via a many-to-many relationship. Each portal then filters based on multiple criteria, a combination of the date range and division/category. This way rental is separated out from sales income etc. etc. I’ve set up summary portals as well, using the single-line technique that I learnt from another thread here. So far, this is all working well and the admin staff are finding it really useful. Naturally, this
  10. I know that this is an old thread, but I wanted to chip in and thank David and Bruce for their work on this function - it's solved what would have been a fairly major headache for me. (I'm doing a count of total spend by customers, but only orders that met certain conditions) The only other ways I could think of making it happen would have been an ugly bodge.
  11. Got it - I think! I was trying to detect a match between the Filtervalue result to the Order ID of the line item in the portal. It figures that if there isn't a match the result will be empty so no need to to worry about equivalence. That's a much more elegant way of working it. It'll be a day or so before I can get back to this but it'll be the first thing I try, hopefully that'll be it.
  12. I've only just been able to return to this task. In theory it should be simple enough to implement, but I suspect I'm doing something wrong with my syntax. (Yet again) I've got the global text field set up (called "Orders to Omit") and there's a button on the portal which appends the OrderID of that item onto the list. The problem is the filtering. To try and simplify things, I've put a calculation field in each item record, using an IF statement to return a "Yes" or "No". However using Filtervalues as below doesn't seem to work. The calculation returns "No" irrespective of whether
  13. In theory, it's not long at all. The omitted record IDs definitely don't need to persist between sessions. The actual scenario is that the user searches for upcoming availability on an item, gets taken to the planner layout, and may choose to remote a record or two. The state of the portal will only be around for that single view which is likely only to be open for the minute or two it takes them to decide that there is enough availability to approve a hire. I'd prefer to purge the omitted list quite promptly, so that they aren't accidentally kept out of other searches. At the momen
  14. I've been gradually working on a planner layout, which uses a portal and conditional formatting to display availability of hire items. It's working well so far, and is proving popular with users. At the moment, I'm using portal filtering to narrow down the selection in the portal, typically to just one product/item. Each occurrence in an order is displayed in a portal row. What I'd like to be able to do is temporarily exclude an item from the portal results. Sometimes the query used to filter the portal is too broad, or we have a very similarly named item that turns up when it isn't rele
  15. That's useful, and a very elegant way of doing it. I confess I'd got them categorised as a bodge from pre-relational times that is best avoided. But they undoubtedly have their place. I've managed to get the layout finished with much less overhead than I was fearing - thanks mainly to the advice here.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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