Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About lcouri

  • Rank
  1. PERFECT. That works within my 'Case' argument perfectly:)
  2. You're absolutely correct. This field is a result of another system export, so there's not much control over that. In fact, my whole issue is to extract a specific product (in this case) and thus render the 'multi-variable field' non-critical:) Thanks everyone, I'll give "PatternCount()" a try!
  3. I'm embarrassed to post this but trust me, I've exhausted searching the internet for strategies. Surely, with Filemaker Pro 12 there must be a way to create a function that looks to an existing text field and searches for a specific string?!? 'Products' would contain none or some or all of A B C D E , in a random order. I would like to create a calculation that searches for 'B' and returns a text expression (there is no "contains" function). I can't think it should be so difficult, I must be using the wrong terminology? ('B' is just a representation of a longer name, ie. "cookies" or
  4. eos, that's fantastic! I'll study this and I never thought of the relational structure with my issue. I'll keep that in mind when working on similar tasks. Thank you! L.
  5. I have a report layout (see attached) that has two columns (far right) that I would like to have summed. e.g "1" under the first of the right side columns and "4" for the farthest right column. I cannot see how I can go about doing this as the raw list will consist of multiple occurrences of the same customers (hence the need for a sub-summary layout). I appreciate any advice on how this can be best represented. Thanks, Lance example.tiff
  6. Thanks Harry, that does translate it well to the FMP process ... I can also see from your example that I was not using proper syntax with respect to the 'and' & 'or' operators ... again, very helpful! L.
  7. Is there a way to 'loosely' relate tables? For example, matching records based on their addresses: "12-34 Maple Ave" on one record in a table to match with "34 Maple AV" on another record with a table? While the exact match is always best, sometimes the need to filter based on 'loose' criteria is important. Thank you:) L.
  8. Thanks All! Eos, your script worked perfectly and allowed me to customize it further! Have a grate day ( yeah, I know), L.
  9. eos, it's early for me adn you are cruel:) Correct, but cruel! L.
  10. Thanks eos:) I unchecked the box that I had overlooked and it still didn't work ... here is the query (time to bear my soul:) ) : Case((IsEmpty(accounts:ID) = IsEmpty(accounts 2:ID));"ADD";(not IsEmpty(accounts:ID) = not IsEmpty(accounts 2:ID));"GOOD") Thanks! L.
  11. I have a calculation field ("Action") in which I need to look at two other fields ("ID" and ID2") and determine if they are both blank (return "ADD") or 'not blank and match' (return "UPDATE") or only one field is blank (return "UPDATE") ... the CASE function is not working properly ... the calculation is not discerning between two fields being blank and two fields being non-blank and matching ... is there another function I should be using? This seems to be a fairly basic query .. ? Thanks in advance! L.
  12. I have a flat database that runs a 'case' calculation in two "Product total" fields, to result in a count of products (that exist in other multiple fields). ie. each "Product total" field is for a specific product (I'm only interested in two products). There are unique customer numbers, of which some have multiple counts for either or both of the products (in the two calculated fields) and some, nothing. I am trying to 'compress' 10000 records to result in one record per unique number with a total for each of those two "Product total" fields next to it ... is this even possible? All of
  13. So I checked the "Mark" field and it is not 'text' ... so I changed that and discovered something: When the script runs it results in all the doubled fields showing an "X" ... that way you can delete them ... I was expecting JUST the second field to be "X" and the all the fields still visually there ... so it appears that it's working now. Thanks very much for the heads up around field type etc. L.
  14. The field contains a number and it is set to 'number' .... the sort appears correct: you see the duplicates together ... it's just the writing "X" in the "Mark" field that's not happening ....
  • Create New...

Important Information

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