Jump to content

sal88

Members
  • Content Count

    309
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

sal88 last won the day on December 21 2017

sal88 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About sal88

  • Rank
    100%

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    United Kingdom

FileMaker Experience

  • Skill Level
    Intermediate
  • FM Application
    18

Platform Environment

  • OS Platform
    Windows
  • OS Version
    10

FileMaker Partner

  • Certification
    Not Certified

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi all Our server decided to shutdown just now due to windows updates. Here is the FMS log: 2019-12-11 17:18:45.641 +0000 Information 745 FM Stopping FileMaker Server processes... 2019-12-11 17:18:45.675 +0000 Information 704 FM Stopping Database Server process... 2019-12-11 17:18:45.704 +0000 Information 488 FM Stopping Database Server... 2019-12-11 17:18:45.734 +0000 Information 410 FM Stopping FileMaker Database Engine... 2019-12-11 17:18:45.770 +0000 Information 140 FM Closing database "BS"... 2019-12-11 17:18:45.778 +0000 Information 140 FM Closing database "Case_Feedback"... 2019-12-11 17:18:45.778 +0000 Information 140 FM Closing database "ML"... 2019-12-11 17:18:45.778 +0000 Information 140 FM Closing database "ML_Correspondence"... 2019-12-11 17:18:45.874 +0000 Information 168 FM Database "BS" closed. 2019-12-11 17:18:45.994 +0000 Information 168 FM Database "Case_Feedback" closed. 2019-12-11 17:20:34.367 +0000 Information 743 FM Starting FileMaker Server processes... As you can see it did not close the last two databases in time. As such, I've just had to wait 30 minutes for one of those two to finish 'checking'. It has now succesfully opened however and we can access it. Obviously we need to disable such automatic Windows shutdowns. But is there another safety net I can put in place to ensure that no shutdown procedure can complete until all FMS services have stopped? And that FMS services cannot stop until all databases have successfully closed? Thanks!
  2. It has crashed a few times (far less frequently however). I have gone for the global multikey field option, party populated by ExecuteSQL. Filter criteria is now only user defined.
  3. Thank you for all the responses guys! Having had a little play with JSON (and I had no idea about variable repetitions!), I feel ready to tackle this. I'm going to go for the hidden repetition option. The layout will have 5-10 repetitions of the same field(s), with only the one that matches that window/record being visible, this will be determined by either JSON or native FM variables. By coincidence, Microsoft Teams has only just released the multi window capability. I'm not sure if the delay was for similar technicalities as my scenario though :D. But it would appear there is (for good or bad) a demand for this kind of multi tasking. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6597210269712207873/ Comment, love your idea of a repetition per record rather than window. This means they can close the window if necessary, and then come back to their draft message. Thank you. In fact, I may begin with just allowing users to close the Case window, and it storing the message in a JSON variable. If I can't solve the styling issue with a reverse 'GetAsCSS' CF such as this one https://www.briandunning.com/cf/855 I will disable window closure if there is styling present. Once that is working I will move on to multi window. Thanks again!
  4. Great memory LaRetta! It is a different portal, but what a coincidence that the issue occurred after an upgrade. I've tried a brand new portal and tables etc but no luck. For now I have replaced: PatternCount ( ¶ & Clients::multikey_Cloud_Machines & ¶ ; ¶ & Machines::ID & ¶ ) with: not IsEmpty ( FilterValues ( Home_Clients::multikey_Cloud_Machines ; Home_Machines::ID )) This has fixed it, though you can still see a delay when the popover is being closed. If it comes up again I will implement a multikey field relationship, the multikey field being updated on record entry. Thank you both for your help!
  5. Did you click away from the popover as soon as you had populated the field? And are you on 18.03? I just tried it on version 17 and the issue didn't occur. Thanks
  6. Hi Comment Please find attached. I think this is down to some poorly made filtering formulas in the portal: 1. The problem doesn't occur if I delete around 7000 of the portal records 2. It also doesn't occur if I remove the carriage returns from: PatternCount ( ¶ & Clients::multikey_Cloud_Machines & ¶ ; ¶ & Machines::ID & ¶ )) in the portal filter 3. However if I remove all the other filters and leave just the above one (with carriage returns) it is also OK Thanks! portal_popover_filter_problem.fmp12
  7. Hello all On FM 18.03, the closing of a popover, the button of which is in each row of a portal, causes FileMaker to close. This appears to only happen when the fields which are in that popover (the portal records) are edited. Has anyone else experienced this? Thanks
  8. Sorry I should have quoted. I was referring to OlgerDiekstra's post...which they've now edited. Is multi-user record locking ever an issue?
  9. Would it be possible to record text formatting in the json variable? Currently the global field's contents may be highlighted, bold, coloured etc, but not uniformly, i.e. one word may be bold but the next may be italics, and then we convert that to html when we send the email. Thanks
  10. I wouldn't say they're supposed to, however there is a lot of multi-tasking and users have become comfortable with dipping in and out of different layouts/windows/records with great rapidity to the extent that it could be argued it is now normal to half finish things before moving on to the next task. It would appear that I will have to give them a choice between one open Case, and multiple open Cases with an additional click in order to initiate email composition, one Case at a time?
  11. Hi Comment Please see attached image which I think should explain. Thanks
  12. Hello all Is there any way to have a global field which does NOT share its contents across different windows. I.e. populating in one window will not populate it when it is displayed in another. I'm guessing that it's not as it would sort of defeat the point of a global field. So here is the situation: We wish to have multiple Case windows open simultaneously. Within each of these windows (which show the same Case layout but different records) we have a global field which is used to define the body of an email that is about to be sent and attached to that Case. We prefer this to be global so as to not lock the record. Therefore, the problem is that if this is populated (but the email is yet to the be sent) then its contents will show in the other windows (which is an entirely different record). Thanks
  13. Hey Wim We're using Azure AD with MFA and the oAuth that is built in to filemaker. We do have a firewall in the form of a network security group in Azure which allows us to lock down the ports however the firewall will not be interpreting the traffic (like a stateful firewall would be), it will just be directing it. Are there any threats out there to Filemaker Server that can attack (unauthenticated) via ports 5003 and 443, short of an authentication breach? Thanks
  14. Hi all As per our migration of our FileMaker Server to the cloud, we are essentially exposing it to the Internet. We have locked down vulnerabilities to the best of our knowledge, e.g. with the use of MFA. However as we will not be having a stateful firewall, we wonder if this will leave us exposed to other forms of attacks similar to SQL injection attacks? Do we need a web application firewall (or FileMaker equivalent) in front of it? Is it only the FileMaker client (or webdirect) that can execute operations in Filemaker Server via the open port? Thanks
  15. Thanks Wim. This is a slightly silly question but is the saved encryption password itself encrypted? i.e. if someone gained access to the server (the host of FMS, not FMS itself), would they be able to extract the encryption password, were it saved in FMS?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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