Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Courtney

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Title
  • Industry
    Pharmaceutical Consulting
  • Gender
  • Location
    Gilbert, AZ

FileMaker Experience

  • Skill Level
  • FM Application
    14 Advanced

Platform Environment

  • OS Platform
  • OS Version
    Win 7 Pro

Recent Profile Visitors

2,759 profile views
  1. Thank you so much LaRetta! I was able to get this working from your example. I've just been so swamped since then that I didn't get back to say so. Thanks again! ~Courtney
  2. Thank you LaRetta. I created a simple example file that shows the key fields and relationships. Example.fmp12
  3. I have a value list in my Timesheet table that includes all related values in the last 60 days, so that a user can use this as a quick reference of their recent usage instead of looking up codes every time. What I'm trying to do now is sort the value list by a second field (Timesheet::Client_Project_dropdown), which is in itself a calculation of company name and project name fields from related tables. As far as I can tell from error messages, I can't sort the value list by this second field because it can't be indexed, because the calculation is based on related fields. I know I can make these fields text fields with auto-enter calculations, but they then won't be updated if a client name or project name changes. What can I do to this second field to make it indexable so that the value list can sort by it?
  4. So, I'm feeling dumb today. I was trying to put data in every field of that third level, and I realize now that if I only put data on the third level where needed, that should solve my problem. Short answer: yes, another sub-summary does appear to do it.
  5. Our current system organizes employees into Teams, and those Teams into Groups. Reports can then be run that display employee time with a sub-summary part for Group and one for Team to give a big picture into performance (see attached image example). New management wants to split SOME but not all of those Teams into smaller functional areas. I'm trying to figure out what kind of layout and calculation gymnastics I'll need to do to display something like the example, but to add a third layer - only where a third layer exists. So it might look something like this: All Clinical Affairs Clinical Affairs Consulting Writing Clinical Strategy Program Management I'm not sure if this is possible. I've been trying to make it work through different sorting or organizing the 3 fields (Group, Team, Function) differently, and I'm not having any success so far. Any ideas? Or confirmation this is not possible, and I need to do something different? Thank you! ~Courtney
  6. I thought if I could create a few portals on a page, and sort them differently, then I could put a chart in each one (sorted by salesperson, sorted by contract staff, sorted by type). I'll look for info on charting by variables. I know I saw it as an option but wasn't clear on how that worked. Thanks.
  7. Is it possible to put more than one chart on a layout showing different things? For starters, management would like to see 3 pie charts of the same data, sorted differently: one to show sales proposals by salesperson, one to show them by contracts staff (person doing the paperwork), and one to show their type (new proposal vs change order). It doesn't seem that I can put charts in portals, so are there other options without plug ins?
  8. In FileMaker 14, I have a checkbox set that allows the user to enter other values aside from the assigned value list. I'm trying to figure out how I could display the "other" text that is entered by the user, without also displaying other selected items, since those are visible in the checkbox set. Can I somehow filter each value list item out and only display what is left in a text field? Thanks for any suggestions.
  9. Thank you - that solved it. I had thought she might have dragged it off screen, but I didn't know how to recover it.
  10. I did not see a more specific topic to ask this question, so I apologize if it should have been posted elsewhere. I have a user who has just transitioned from working in the office to working from home full time. She has the same laptop that she's had for a couple of years, which she mostly uses for Outlook and FileMaker. (Primary work is done on a separate laptop.) Just over the weekend, apparently, the Open Remote dialog box no longer opens when she launches FileMaker. Additionally, when she clicks Open Remote from the File menu, nothing happens. No error messages, no dialog, just nothing. (She is still able to access the network files by going to Open Favorite and selecting the server from there.) IT had her bring in the laptop, and they have uninstalled and reinstalled FileMaker software, as well as BonJour. The problem persists. Any idea what could be causing this? I asked if any new software had been installed on this machine, and IT says no. (I work remotely and am not able to put my hands directly on the machine, but was able to verify this behavior via a remote connection.) Thank you, ~Courtney
  11. Thank you. I will put this into my test file and see how it goes. Can you expand at all on eliminating unstored calculations and using scripts to update values in stored fields? Is there a 'best practice' type paper on that kind of thing? Ultimately, my goal is to improve performance, especially when people are connecting through our VPN vs sitting in the office.
  12. So, would this be a popup from my existing Personnel page then? They could view their records through the portal, but any edits or new records would be done via a popup where the layout is based directly on the Timesheet table? I continue to have problems with validation, regardless of numerous script triggers to validate individual fields, so I may need to consider this.
  13. I have a Dashboard layout that is based on my Personnel table. I have a portal on this layout that is based on my Project table. Personnel is related to Project by Personnel::Employee UID = Project::PM - so that the person who is designated PM (Project Manager) on the project sees his projects in this portal. The portal is filtered by whether field Project::PM_Count is greater than 0, where PM_Count is a calculation (number) with this definition: ValueCount ( FilterValues ( List (ProjectTimesheet::eReview Status ) ; "PM Review" ) ) --- (This counts timesheets that the PM needs to review.) Currently, with about 160 projects with PM_Count greater than 0, the portal is taking about 2 minutes to refresh after each review. I am trying to get rid of the filtering by making a relationship that would accomplish the same result, because I understand that should be faster. However, since PM_Count is a calculation field, I'm having a hard time creating a relationship that will work. How can I create a relationship for this portal that won't require filtering of this nature?
  14. I have a time entry layout based on my Personnel table, with a portal to a related Timesheet table. Several of the fields in the Timesheet table are validated for "not empty" (aka, they are required fields) When users add several timesheet records in the portal without committing after each record, if validation fails on any record, it gives them the error message: "FieldName" is defined to require a value, but is not available on this layout. Use another layout to assign a value to this field. (And of course, if they revert, they lose ALL their uncommitted records, not just the one that failed validation.) These fields ARE on the layout, but via portal and a relationship, so I suspect the validation is looking for field "Timesheet::Role" from the primary data table and not "PersonnelTimesheet::Role" from the relationship graph. My real problem, I guess, is that users have no feedback as far as which of their entries is failing validation. And I guess the REAL real problem is that I can't figure out how to force commit/validation as they leave one portal row. Is there a good way to solve either of these problems? Do I need to use custom messaging for failing validation? Should I add this to script triggers on leaving each field instead? There are 11 fields visible in the portal, and 5 of them are required, with an additional 1 being required if other conditions are met.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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