Jump to content

TJ53

Members
  • Content count

    148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About TJ53

  • Rank
    member

Profile Information

  • Title
    Consultant
  • Gender
    Male

FileMaker Experience

  • Skill Level
  • FM Application
    16 Advanced

Platform Environment

  • OS Platform
    Mac
  • OS Version
    El Capitan

FileMaker Partner

  • Certification
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
  • Membership
    FileMaker Business Alliance

Recent Profile Visitors

2,138 profile views
  1. Thank you! the exit script (false) on record commit script trigger comes handy for this situation. Thank you for the tip about GTRR, I was thinking on a situation where the portal record needs to created or updated from different contexts.
  2. I guess people are using a similar technique for creating and editing portal records after the new FM16 card window feature, any posts or links about this? In any case, this is how I'm doing it (sample attached) ... any feedback appreciated! Create or edit portal records.fmp12
  3. Virtual list using JSON

    That's some great information to take into account, thank you!!
  4. Thank you for the tip! I'll definitely keep it in mind.
  5. Virtual list using JSON

    Thank you for the responses, I hadn't thought about the speed factor, it makes a lot of sense. So ... are the JSON functions slow for building or parsing? I haven't tested them with big chunks of text. I see that in the recent FM16 update the speed of the "sort values" and "unique values" functions have been improved. Is the speed of the JSON functions an issue in a similar way? I haven't read anything about it ... any interesting links about this? thanks!
  6. I just did! looking forward to some replies Done!
  7. Virtual list using JSON

    On a separate thread I asked Bruce Robertson if the new FM16 JSON functions could be used together with the virtual list technique he created. I haven’t experimented with it but I wonder if JSON adapt well to this great technique. Any thoughts? thanks!
  8. Sounds good! looking forward to that.
  9. Thank you very much Bruce for your modifications, it looks good and crystal clear. I think it's a good philosophy you mention, I´ll definitely take it into account. I guess I often try to minimise the number of lines of codes and make my scripts modular, but I understand your point that this sometimes this goes against readability and easier debugging, I'll definitely look into that! By the way, I've been using your virtual list technique and I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for such great contribution to the community. I guess this belongs to a different topic but ... would your technique benefit if adapted to be implemented using the new FM16 JSON functions?
  10. Thank you Laretta. Please see attached example of what I'm doing. The idea is to try to workaround the scripted sorting limitation of FM by naming fields in the layout and passing the name as parameter. Actually, if FM had a script step "Go to Field By Name", the parameter passed could just be GetFieldName ( field_for_sorting ), and having to name the objects in the layout could be avoided. This is another limitation of FM scripting ... we have "Set field By Name", "Go to Object (object name as calculation)", but we don´t have "Go to Field By Name" ... Anyway, please let me know what you think about how I'm doing this ... I just want to avoid a bunch of "if - else" statements ... any suggestion is welcome, thanks! Sort_by_field_object_name.fmp12
  11. Thank you for your suggestion LaRetta, unfortunately that wouldn't work for this case since the user would be confused to see that the record "disappears" after committed (it would land in a different record). I think one of the biggest limitations of FM scripting is not being able to perform a sort based on criteria passed by a parameter. I thought I had that solved by using Sort Records by Field after going to the object (named field) based on the name passed as script parameter... and just noticed the limitation of not being able to "not keep the sort order".
  12. Thank you for your reply. Regarding this: Let´s say that I have an invoices list sorted by status: "not paid" / "paid". So when "keeping the sort order", the not paid invoices are grouped first, and then there is the group of paid invoices. Now, if you change the status of an invoice from "not paid" to "paid", then that invoice will change its position to be in the "paid" group. If the user is in list view, he can see what's happening (the record changing its position in the found set), but if the user is in form view, it's confusing ... especially if the user navigates to next or previous record after changing the status of an invoice. In the "Sort Records" script step this is just a matter of unchecking the "keep records in sorted order" checkbox. But in the "Sort Records by Field" there is no such checkbox, so it's always keeping the sort order after committing the record. The reason why I would like to use "Sort Records by Field" is to be able to dynamically sort records by just passing a script parameter with the name of the field (object name), so I don't need to hard code several "if - else " statements. So the script is something like this: (first: name the sortable fields in the layout) - set variable: $field_object_name = get(scriptparameter) - go to Object ($field_object_name) - Sort Records by Field The problem is, I don't want the found set to keep records in sorted order, but it seems there is no way to disable this with the Sort Records by Field script step ... unless somebody has come up with an alternative way of doing this!
  13. In the "Sort Records" script step, there is a checkbox to "keep records in sorted order", that is checked by default, but it can be unchecked (left bottom in the dialog window). But the "Sort Records by Field" script step doesn't have that checkbox so it always keeps the sort order. This is confusing when the user is in form view, because when the user edits the field used for the current found set sorting, then the position of the record relative to the found set changes.
  14. Is there any way to not keep records in sorted order when using the script step "Sort Records by Field"?
  15. Thank you! that´s what makes sense. I'm glad it was only a problem with the login configuration of my files
×

Important Information

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