comment

You ask jokingly, but I will answer in earnest. There are two things that could wrong: User A arranges records in order A. Then User B rearranges them in order B, thus defeating whatever purpose User A had in mind. User A tries to put them back in order A - to the frustration of UserB. Repeat as necessary. User A tries to arrange records, but keeps getting errors because other users happen to be editing some of the records being moved. Those are the pitfalls of re-ordering records by modifying them (plus there is the issue of "last modified" becoming meaningless). There are alternatives, but we don't know if they will fit here because we don't know the purpose of reordering.

Can't you use some more "convoluted math" to prevent this from happening?

A few random notes: 1. You can move a record up/down by exchanging its order_num values with the preceding/following record. 2. You can move a record to the top of the list by setting its order_num value to the minimum of order_num - 1 (in your example, that would be 0). If necessary, you can use the Replace Field Contents step to renumber the entire found set at the end. 3. Re drag and drop, see if these can help: https://fmforums.com/topic/93510-containers-drag-and-drop-script-triggers/?tab=comments#comment-427732 https://fmforums.com/topic/67781-script-triggers-and-drag-drop-incompatible/?tab=comments#comment-322507 4. Keep in mind that re-ordering records manually can be problematic in a multi-user scenario.

See if this helps: https://fmforums.com/topic/105273-searching-related-data-with-and/?do=findComment&comment=476391

That could be achieved by hiding the summary field conditionally. True, having the calculation field has the advantage of placing all the required logic in one place. But I also like to eliminate fields as much as possible.

Come to think of it, you don't need the calculation field. You can perform the same calculation within the chart itself.

Well, then I believe my suggestion will work (much to my surprise, I should add).

Why not simply use the GetValue() function?

Information that would enable us to reproduce your problem. LaRetta suggested an excellent way to do that. What you have provided so far is insufficient, as you can see in the attached file. Unless the file doesn't work for you - which would mean you have a problem in your system. Test.fmp12

Technically, you could define a calculation field along the lines of: If ( Amount ; sRunningTotal ) Whether this will fit your purpose is hard to say, because I don"t understand your purpose. You say; What does he want to get - and why? In my understanding, a flat line is the correct representation of a running total when there are no new amounts.

Based on what?

Two notes: 1. Beware of custom functions that use script variables (prefixed with $ or $$). Especially if they don't take care to reset these variables at the end. 2. If you're doing this in a script, then you don't need a custom function; you can put all the required logic - including the conversion to decimal - in the script.

Well, then there you have it:

Yes. I thought you had this worked out already, but you should definitely start with an ERD.

The sList field is not for showing missing invoices. It is meant to list the existing invoices. The script takes this list and generates the list of missing numbers into a variable. See if the attached demo makes it clearer. MissingNumbers.fmp12