Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Harry

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2,639 profile views
  1. Hello Board. I may be searching the incorrect terms; but I can't find an answer to my problem. I have built a system, it's running on FMS18 and multiple client users access it throughout the day. One part of the system is a quality check screen at a physical bench/station - items are scanned and labels are printed out as required, records are created and used elsewhere. There are three label formats. Each station has three label printers - Citizen 631's. They are networked printers. I would like to have more than two bench/stations operating this process in the future. Can
  2. Ah, right, now *you're* making sense to me. Sorry the post wasn't formatted correctly; yes that was a reply. When I say 'Product', and not in reference to 'Table Product', I'm talking about what you talk about as an Inventory Item. Yes. An actual product thing; something we make or sell. (Which brings a very interesting question - when I say 'Product', what are you thinking about, if not a product....?) Anyway, to (hopefully now) clarify. An Inventory Item has one Stock Code. An Inventory Item also has one Barcode. The Barcode is a unique serial number designa
  3. Thanks, Lee, for your input. I think, if you read through my posts from the off, you might see that I've actually done pretty much all of the things stated in that topic. I probably have apologise too much; we have V13, V14, and V15, so my info could be updated. Also remained pretty jovial given the 'Your database is crap and you need to start again' rhetoric in the responses received so far! Comment has unravelled my posts many times before; if I scaled those against this one, I'd have to say this new post is massively less complicated. So from my point of view, i'm not
  4. I recoginse that it's not explained fully, yes. I have stated that and then further asked for clarification on which questions weren't answered. You keep replying by telling me that it's not comprehensible. But of course, without knowing which bit is incomprehensible, I cannot try to communicate it in a less complicated fashion. Indeed, I tried, but it only served to further complicate the discussion. Therefore, as is obviously the case that my entire description and subsequent answers to critical questions do not serve to enlighten you and Comment, it is not unreasonable for me to suggest tha
  5. That's my point, the interchange of labels and names to try and find a middle ground where we can communicate correctly. When Comment introduced the Widget and Gadget idea, I thought I had answered his question regarding that very directly and completely. Each Product / SKU has two codes on it. A Unique Code, and a Barcode.
  6. OK, so I did answer the question but used a new word, 'TYPE'. I introduced that word because you introduce the word 'Widget' and 'Gadget' as opposed to using the predefined terms already in use; 'stockcode'. I thought there was a misunderstanding around that building (as I presume you also thought, which is why you tried describing it with different words), so i dual-purposed 'TYPE' to show product or Variant. SKU/TYPE/VARIANT/STOCK CODE are all used to mean the same thing in various systems that we interact with, not through our design; so it must be put into context. I understand that contex
  7. Bruce, what critical question didn't I answer? Because, from what you've written and what i've written, my answer is right there on the screen. You actually haven't asked a question that I haven't replied to directly. You're critical question, presented in your example is answered. I demonstrate from my TO graphic and in contextual writing how the data is related and how one can tell which Stockcode the Stock_Take product is. Sorry, BruceR, I just can't see what information I'm not giving you that is making this so difficult for me to communicate.
  8. Just to pick this piece up that you wrote... We do not attach the Stock_Code when it is inspected, no. We know what Works_Order it was created on and we know what Stock_Code was on that Works Order.
  9. OK, thanks for the input. One Works Order is only for one product type. There are never Works Orders with multiple product types (different stock codes) on our system. (This is where the Kanban/Kamban nomleclature came from.) [A Works Order is only for 12 x StockCode OR 200 x StockCode OR 5000 x StockCode.] The 'Works_Order' table is the parent/header table. The other data it uses is not solely for Worksorders or any other table, it is shared. So it does not form a strict Parent/Child relationship, in the same way an Invoice_Header would have an Invoice_Line_Items child table.
  10. Wim, Thanks for your message. I can't start again, these are the tables i need to use. They are incumbent within my systems, i can't just start again.... It's not 'convoluted' in a database schema way. It's an SQL schema that's been built with strict relationship parameters; that is, table 'worksorder' only includes things like 'WO Number' and 'Stockcode'. The description for the product of 'Stockcode' isnt even in the 'product' table, it's in 'Product_Details'. That's not convolusion, it's just data integrity. I certainly appreciate all you guys looking at my problem and I'm al
  11. Wow, Bruce. ... tough week? No need for that sort of tone old chap. You can't really thing i'm being obtuse on purpose? You don't really think i'm trying to not provide you with the information? Do you really think that i've taken screen shots, written and formatted those posts in a way so as to obscure the point i'm trying to make and therefore discourage discussion and expert opinion? Or perhaps, just possibly, i'm on a help forum because I do not fully understand my problem and therefore some of that misunderstanding could have been miscommunicated as part of the problem itself?
  12. Hi both, Thanks for taking a look. I honestly didn't think it was that complicated to explain. Our products come off our production line (Inspection) labelled like this: 1. Product Code: 12345 UBarcode: 0000076354 2. Product Code: 12345 UBarcode: 0000086332 3. Product Code: 12345 UBarcode: 0000033812 4. Product Code: 12345 UBarcode: 0000097493 5. Product Code: 12345 UBarcode: 0000091123 But they were scanned (StockTake) like this: 1. UBarcode: 0000076354 2. UBarcode: 0000086332 3. UBarcode: 0000033812 4. UBarc
  13. So, from reading the barcode from that stock take - the stock take table has been created. Someone went and scanned Widgets and Gadgets with a handheld scanner and it built a csv inside with the Unique Barcode (UB...?) in one field and a timestamp on another. I imported that data to StockTake Then, relate the StockTake::UB to our table called 'Inspection'. This has all the products that have come off the end of the production line in it. It has the UB code, the 'creation date' timestamp, the Works Order number it was created under and a few other details and fields. StockTake::U
  14. Hi! Yes, each StockItem has a unique barcode. There would be 5 unique ones in the 5 records in StockItems. Each Product has a barcode. Products table would have two Barcodes in it. StockItems would have two Barcodes in it, attached to the two products. Or, We make 100 x Model A and 100 x Model B. There are 200 'unique barcodes', 2 'product barcodes'.
  15. OK... I'll try and not start again, sort of... Basically, I'm trying to do a Stock Take here in our warehouse, and get an aged stock analysis, too. All my stock is serial numbered, that's the Barcode that's been scanned. That data/table was created in Filemaker, partly, as the 'Inspection' table. When our products are made, they are checked and then its barcode is scanned and a record is created. I created the Stock_Take table from physical scans in our stock room with a little wireless scanner. SO i have a bunch of Serial Barcode Numbers and Timestamps. Each Serial
  • Create New...

Important Information

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