Jump to content

susan siegel

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About susan siegel

  • Rank
  1. Thanks again for pointing me in the direction of the "replace fields" command. Now I understand why the script was not working for all the records in the found set. Susan
  2. Thanks to both Enders and Geoff. I think I understand it now. 1) if I use a calculation when I define a field, it forces a result for all records -- BUT 2) if I use a calculation to "replace field contents" , then the calculation only applies for the found set and doesn't change what already exists in the field for all the other "non" found records. While the above has resolved my immediate problem, I'm still left with one unanswered question for future use: does a script work for only one record at a time or can it be applied to an entire found set? Thanks again.
  3. I tried a calculation field in the new field 3 using an IF statement. I don't remember the exact language or punctuation, but it went something like this: If (field 1="x"; "1"; "0") This worked fine for bringing the contents of field 1 into the new field 3. But, if I'm remembering my experience correctly, I encounted two problems. 1)the calc formula only worked when entering new records, not for changing existing ones. (I may not have had the field coded correctly for validation; I have to take another look at that.) 2)because field 3 was a calc field, I couldn't modify th
  4. I'm trying to copy and paste data from an existing field to another for a specified found set, basically trying to "fix" a database that was not set up correctly in the beginning. I've set up a script that works - but only for the first record of the found set; not the others. I think I must be missing a basic step somewhere but can't figure it out. Here's a simplfied version of what I'm trying to do. Field 1 (an existing field with data, e.g., "x") Field 2 (an existing field with data, e.g., "y") Field 3 (new field that will contain either "x" or "y" or be empty if
  5. Many thanks to all three responders. (I hope this one response suffices for all three.) Your examples have given me several options to test out for different databases and data entry practices. I get the gist of creating a new calculation field to get rid of the extra spaces. It seems that using the "substitute" option is the best because it automatically corrects the original field for me. The other options, including adding a "spacecheck field" alert me to a problem that needs attention. I have different types of databases with different entry patterns and different histories
  6. For lack of a better term or phrase, I'll call my problem one of "hidden data" When viewing a record, a field may "look" empty but it turns out there is "something" in the field because the record shows up on a "find" when, based on the find criteria I have entered, the record should NOT show up. (example: The "find" criteria calls for every record that has data in "field x" -- but -- some records come up that don't have anything in "field x") When I suspect that the "find" results include a record that doesn't belong, I go back to the record, and even though the field looks empty,
  7. I'm not sure I'm explaining this correctly - but the problem is that the layout stops showing the sub summary sort after I've gone back into the table to make some data changes. The sub summary is based on the "street name" field (and there's a "street name summary" field )and then there are a series of summary fields, let's just call them a, b, c,d, etc. For each street, I get the totals for each of the summary fields. The first time I set up the layout, after much trial and error, I can get the layout that I want (I'll skip over why I can't get it right the first time.)
  8. I need some help on how to set up the following type FIND in possibly one step. I want to search on the STATE field pulling up only records for certain states, e.g., MD, VA, NC. (I have no problem adding other fields to the find, e.g., those with email addresses in the above states and those who are "active" records.) When I enter the criteria in the initial FIND screen, is there a way I can enter multiple states on the same FIND screen instead of doing individual finds for each state? I suspect the answer may lie in creating a script but I'm new to FM and not well versed in scripts
  9. Thanks for your posting. The only reason for my wanting the duplicate field was so that when I changed the original contents using the "replace" command, I could compare the two fields in a side by side comparison to spot any errors. While most of the replacements are a simple single number replacement, some are more complex and involve 2-4 numbers separated by a comma, with each number needing to be replaced. See the last posting from Lee who parsed the field so that I can see ALL the old numbers and the new numbers side by side. I'm not sure anyone else will ever want to dupl
  10. Thanks (again), Lee. The parsing lets me see all the "original" numbers so I can visually compare them with the revised ones I'll be substituing and hopefully pick up any errors when I do a mass "replace." I can't seem to open up the script so that I can understand -- and learn -- what you did. So I'd very much appreciate one more posting with the actual script steps. The script may also be helpful in my dealing with the awkward "author" I'm working with where I have multiple author names that have to be separated as well as the names of adapters. Parsing may be the solution to
  11. Thanks, Lee. Looks like you're an early riser. I'm on my way out for a meeting and will look at the file when I return. I fogot to mention (it didn't seem important) that only some of the records have source codes; there's another field I use to sort out only the relevant records. But that shouldn't affect what you did. susan
  12. Hi Lee, The numbers in the "source code" field, #1-164, direct the user to an alphabetical list of 164 specific sources which will be listed, by number, elsewhere in the publication. That's why the contents of this field vary from a single number to 2 or more numbers; some records have more than one source. Unexpectedly, after I listed the source code/s for all 1,600 entries, I discovered that 3 sources had been omitted from the original list of 164 sources. So I have had to renumber the original source list based on a new alpha sort. That means, that all the "source codes" have to
  13. Thanks again, Lee. Unfortunately, still not working. Attached is a copy of the file. What I am able to do is copy and paste the "source code" field into the new "revised code" field -- BUT - it comes out in one record, as a list. You'll see the "15" in the attached file in the first record. this would be okay -- except for the fact that the leading is different from the original field and after a few records the records (numbers) don't line up properly. In the attached test tile I've moved the two critical fields over the the left so you don't have to bother with the
  14. Thanks, Lee, for the quick response. I hadn't explored scripts yet. I tried your suggested script but still ran into problems. Depending on how I did it, I either got nothing in the second duplicated field or just one entry in the list of 1,600 records. Here's a recap of what I did. I'm obviously missing something. I created a new layout (Layout #9) with just the field I want copied ("source code") and all the appropriate records are there when I view by table. I entered the following for the script. 1) go to layout (layout #9) 2) select all (you didn't indica
  • Create New...

Important Information

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