Jump to content

danek

Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

danek's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. If a database is created with Advanced, can it be used (custom functions and all) on the regular version of FileMaker Pro? I think I will just do all my "loop" iterations by hand for now; it's not a big deal in this case. Thanks. (I tried to get it to work by doing a Calculation Repetition, but this ended up making my field a repeating field, which wasn't exactly a desired effect.) Thanks guys.
  2. Wow, that was REALLY easy. And no need for a join table, either. (What is a join table? Sounds like it might be useful to know for the future.) I just created a new table with two fields, Attribute UID (serial, autogenerated, not modifiable) and Attribute Name. Then I made my value list based off of Attribute UID, also displaying values from Attribute Name, and only displaying values from Attribute Name. Made a checkbox thingy and it worked like a charm. Only "gotcha" was that I had to add a bunch of leading zeroes to the serial number for Attribute UID. Otherwise, searching for "1" also grabs all records with "10" "11" "12" "13" etc. (I suspected this might happen so I tested it.) Now the users can just add a record to the "Attribute" table whenever they need more checkbox thingies. I am very happy. Thanks for the tip, Fitch.
  3. I like where you are going with this approach. I will have to read up on join tables. Thank you.
  4. That's a good idea. My only question is, if there are multiple search terms, how do I get the script to do the matching?
  5. Hi all, Is it possible to do a loop within a calculation (in Define Fields) OR to call a user-defined script from within a calculation? Each record has a set of related records. I want to define a calculation field displaying a particular related record if and only if it meets other criteria as well. Right now I have a calculation which looks really ugly (I am inexperienced with FileMaker scripting please don't yell at me!): If (GetNthRecord(Foo::Bar;1) = "Criterion"; GetNthRecord(Foo::Foo;1); "") & If (GetNthRecord(Foo::Bar;2) = "Criterion"; GetNthRecord(Foo::Foo;2); "") ... etc I couldn't figure out a way to lookup a related record from the list of related records based on the value of one of its fields (not the field that creates the relationship, and i don't want to make another occurrence of the table in the relationship graph) so this was the next best thing I was able to get going. There is probably a better way. I'd be happy if I could just do the above, but with a loop. If not a loop in the calculation itself, perhaps by calling a script.
  6. OK a little bit of background here: I have a database that I did some time ago, where each record in one of the tables had a set of attributes, which were represented by a field displayed as checkboxes. This worked fine and well for some time, until the users decided they kept needing to add more attributes to the value list, causing problems during finds. Allow me to illustrate by example: suppose there was an attribute "Foo" which later received extensions to "Foo 2" and "Foo 3". If the user wanted to search for all records with attribute "Foo", all the records that had attributes "Foo 2" and "Foo 3" would come up as well. This particular case was solvable by retronaming "Foo" to "Foo 1", but I think you're starting to get the idea... It just so happens that a lot of the attributes they define share common words. For example, they might have an attribute "Foo", an attribute "Bar", and an attribute "Foo Bar". I found that renaming with qualifiers ("Foo ONLY"; "Bar ONLY") helped in cases like these, but the big question is (because I'm setting up another database that will have a similar feature...) Is there a way to force searches to match an item off a value list *exactly*, instead of doing a partial match? Note that "exactly" doesn't exactly mean "exactly" ... I want individual items to match exactly, but I don't want to need to have every attribute match the search criteria in order to find a record... For example, searching for items with attribute "Foo" should also find items that are "Foo" and "Bar", or "Foo" and "Foo Bar", or "Foo" and "Bar" and "Foo Bar", but it should not find items that are "Foo Bar" without also being "Foo". The possible solution I have contemplated is to make a separate field for each attribute (instead of one field for "attributes" displayed as a check-box list off of a value list for "attributes") . My problems with this solution are twofold: 1. There would be DOZENS of fields instead of just one. 2. The other way, if the users need to add more attributes, it's easy enough to go to the value list and change it. Having them add a new field, find a new place for it in the layout, etc., or having them call us every time they need to make a change, is not an attractive option. I have a feeling I'm more or less boned here, but if anybody knows some search voodoo (or if I'm missing something really obvious and dumb) that would help in a situation like this, I'd be very grateful. I don't want to have to explain that "attributes must be named in such and such a way paying close attention to such and such" and the various ugly and hackish ways to name things so that finding works correctly... [Edited so that the title would make sense]
  7. (here's a screenshot of my relationships graph, btw...)
  8. I had the EXACT same problem, and I actually came up with the same solution myself after much head-scratching... (I came on here to see if anybody had any better ideas, and found this post.) In my case I have a table of "people" who can each take various "roles" ... there are 5 different "roles" and so I created five different instances of the "people" table... Then I realized that showing all of the "people" in each drop-down menu, instead of just whichever ones are appropriate for a particular "role" seemed silly, and tried to figure out a way to limit the value lists. Short version of the end of the story: now I have 5 different value lists coming off of the same table, and 10 (!) occurrences of the same table on the graph, just to make this work, which is especially silly, considering that the primary functionality of this database is to track something else entirely which is contained in a single table. (The "people" thing I just put in so they wouldn't have to type in somebody's name every time they assigned somebody to something.) The whole time I was thinking, "this is silly... there has GOT to be a better way..." But if all you FileMaker-heads (I only dabble in the stuff) agree that there isn't, I guess I will have to live with my giant relationship graph.
  9. That did the trick. You answered my other question, too (using different fields for setting/defining a relationship.) Thanks so much!
  10. Hi everybody! New around here. I have a database which has a couple of tables, and records that tie in to other tables based on a name field relationship. Problem is, if you change the name on a record (to correct a typo or for whatever other reason) it breaks the relationship with all the records in other tables using that name. To try and work around this problem, I gave each record a unique serial number that automatically gets generated when the record is created. This number does not appear on any layout, so it can't be changed accidentally. Currently this fix makes things less user-friendly, because to assign a record to a related record in another table, one must know and enter this number. What is a good way to use a different, human-readable field to select a record in another table, and set the value of a hidden field to define a relationship to this record?
  11. Hi everybody! New here - quick question which I'm sure is asked a lot, but I tried searching under "list view wrap" "list view row height" and a bunch of other queries, but can't find the answer: Is there a way to set up a layout so that in list view, if the contents of a field are longer than the column permits, the field displayed/printed will automatically get as tall as it needs to to accomodate the data? Basically, the goal is to have each record take up one line if possible, and if any particular field (free-form notes, for example) exceeds the width available, then the record automagically gets as tall as it needs to without making any of the other records taller. Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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