keckfmp

I would think this would be easy to achieve, but I can't figure it out and have searched all over to no avail. I want a sub-summary to print at the top of every page with a maximum of 6 body records printed. Here are some examples of how this should look for various numbers of records within the sub-summary grouping. In this example, there are 18 records in the found set, the sort field breaks them up into 3 groups (3 records, 6 records, 9 records). I want that displayed as follows: Page 1: Sub-summary group 1 record 1 record 2 record 3 Page 2: Sub-summary group 2 record 1 record 2 record 3 record 4 record 5 record 6 Page 3: Sub-summary group 3 record 1 record 2 record 3 record 4 record 5 record 6 Page 4: Sub-summary group 3 record 7 record 8 record 9 For that last group I want the Sub-summary part printed on top of both page 3 and page 4. I played with various combinations of page breaks, page breaks after x occurrences, etc. For that third group it will simply print the final 3 records at the top of page 4 with no leading sub-summary. Any thoughts?

I'm using FMS 7 on Windows. I need to schedule a ScriptMaker script to run on one of the databases. What's the best approach? Under FileMaker 4, I used to just schedule a task on one of the clients that would open a dummy database that had no fields, but would run a script that ran external sub-scripts. I've found this approach to not be that reliable so I'd rather the server handle it. Thanks in advance.

I think my solution here is going to be to script a bunch of finds and import records temporarily into a "merge" table to just use for reporting. After each report is printed, the "merge" table's records will be deleted. Kind of a clunky solution, but I think it will work. Does anyone have a better suggestion, or see serious flaws in this approach?

Thanks for your reply. Each service is fundamentally very different so it was just easier to set it up this way. In actuality, I should have referred to each "service" as a "technology" or "discipline" with each consisting of multiple "services".

This is probably a very simple question, but I'm still trying to convert from a FM4 way of thinking to FM8. I have a "sample" table where records are entered as samples are submitted. I also have several "service" tables, each representing a different "service". Any combination and number of services may be performed on a particular sample. I need to generate reports for invoices and packing lists as follows: Sample (from Sample table) Service 1 Record 1 (from Service 1 table based on sample) Record 2 (from Service 1 table based on sample) Record 3 (from Service 1 table based on sample) Service 2 Record 1 (from Service 2 table based on sample) Record 2 (from Service 2 table based on sample) Record 3 (from Service 2 table based on sample) Service 3 Record 1 (from Service 3 table based on sample) Record 2 (from Service 3 table based on sample) Record 3 (from Service 3 table based on sample) etc. Again, probably a total newbie type question, but I can't get out of this brain freeze. Any thoughts?

Please do. I'm AppleScript illiterate.

Thanks for your reply, but I'm using the variable in a previous ScriptMaker step. Any thoughts?

I have a variable defined in FM ScriptMaker. I then need to reference that FM variable as part of a native AppleScript step. Is this possible?

I got part of this working. I was able to get FileMaker to export the file to the correct location using a variable to define a path as described above by Wim Decorte. However, in a subsequent step in my script, I'm using an AppleScript to then open the file using SimpleText under Classic (we have a specific need for this versus it opening in TextEdit). How can I specify the same variable in AppleScript? Just adding the variable to it doesn't work.

Thanks. So do I simply create a field to calculate the path and just type the field into the "specify output file" window of the export script step?

I would like to be able to set a script to export to a file name based on a particular field (username using the get function). Is this possible?

We're coming closer to making a decision here and are leaning towards an Xserve for both the FMS 5.5 and Lasso servers. Any additional feedback since I first posted this?

It just occurred to me that I could unstore the Institution_Value_List_Items field and create a global to capture the current state of the Institution_Value_List_Items field via a script. This global would then be used in the Institution_Valid calculation. Anyone see any flaws in this approach?

I'm getting closer. Here's what I have: Three fields - Institution, Institution_Value_List_Items, and Institution_Valid. I also have a value list called Institution which uses values from the Institution field. The field are defined as follws: Institution (Text, Validated by Institution Value List) Institution_Value_List_Items (Calculation, Result is Text, Calculation is stored): ValueListItems( Status( CurrentFileName) ,"Institution") Institution_Valid (Calculation, Result is Text, Calculation is stored): If( PatternCount( Institution_Value_List_Items, Institution ) > 0, "Valid" , "Invalid" ) This works properly, but as the Institution_Value_List_Items field is stored (it has to be or I'll be in the same circular situation where everything is valid), the result is that this field doesn't get updated as records are added or deleted. Therefore I need a way to "refresh" the Institution_Value_List_Items field so the data includes the newly added items. Thoughts?

Thank you Steve. Yes, the latter is true. We will accept all data and validate/error correct internally. I have come up with a similar approach using container fields that displays a green checkmark if the field validated correctly, or a red X if it doesn't. I still have a problem though: We will accept data into a particular field. I'm trying to set up the validation by determining if that data is a member of an existing value list. The value list is defined by the contents of that field itself. In effect, the value list only contains data that currently exist in the database and thus the Lasso-entered data only validates if it's in the value list. The problem is that FMP allows Lasso entries of non-existentent data and then simply updates the value list so it always validates. So I'm kind of in a circular situation. What I need to do is somehow validate the data by determining if it already exists in the database. If it does not, it should be tagged as invalid and only tagged valid once updated by a staff member. I'm looking into the ValueListItems design function, and then validate against that versus the value list itself, but I'm not getting very far. I don't know how to validate data in the field by determining whether it exists in the list within the ValueListItems field. I then need a way to update the ValueListItems field. Any thoughts on ways to pull this off?

We plan to have a users registration database driven by Lasso. We will always allow data from Lasso into all fields. However, in an effort to acheive data consistency, we will manually authorize these user accounts. Certain fields should only contain data that is validated by a value list. In the event that a particular field doesn't validate we'd like to clearly identify it by changing to field style for that record to indicate so (perhaps bold and red). I don't think record-level formatting is possible, but perhaps someone has come up with a clever workaround. We cannot provide the value lists on the Lasso side due to confidentiality issues. Any thoughts?

I'm not familiar with FMS 5.5, but on my FMS 3 installation on NT4, I simply put shortcuts with FMS. The FMP files are on another partition. Works okay. I'm looking to upgrade to probably FMS 5.5 on W2K3. Does the same shortcut approach work?

OS 9 for stability? Now there's an oxymoron. Seriosuly though, thanks for the input. I'm leaning towards W2K/2K3 mostly because that's what's familiar. Any other experiences or advice? As for hardware, what's the most important; RAM, disk speed, or processors? I'll probably have a pretty generous budget (~$6,000 for the FMP server alone).

Hello all, We are currently running FMP 4 databases and FM 3 Server. We have three server installations (independent labs/LANs). On the larger campus network we run FM 3 Server on Windows NT 4 Server. In that instance, most of the clients are Windows 2000/XP. On the remaining two LANs, we run Mac OS 9 for the FM Server and in one instance mostly Windows clients (some Mac) and on the other network, mostly Mac OS 9 and X clients running classic. We also run two installatinos of the old Tango (version 3.1) CGI for Web ordering capability. We are currently developing a new CGI using Lasso 7. Before the roll-out, we would like to upgrade the databases to FM 6 and FM Server 5.5 (no immediate plans to go to FM 7 as we have ties to Mac OS 9), as well as the server hardware and OS. I would like to standardize on a server platform for all FMP services. Questions are as follows: 1 - Is there any performance data available which indicates which OS (W2K/W2K3 Server or Mac OS X Server) performs better? Does anyone have any preferences? Is this negligible? 2 - Is there any benefit to running one Server OS over the other in terms of the type of client (Win or Mac)? e.g. does a Mac client see better performance from a Mac server, or vice versa? I would like to look at this from strictly a performance standpoint, at least initially. Any other thoughts or considerations?