Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About pjp

  • Rank
  1. pjp

    services wanted Web Enabling an FM Pro Database

    I have developed a fairly extensive application to manage my business using FM Pro 8.5 Advanced. Now I need to consider how to host it and make it available over the web to various users. I would like to engage a consultant to help me with this project. More details in the attached file. I am ready to go with this project and am looking for a consultant now. : PJPCo_Database_Consulting_Project_Spec_2008_04_22.pdf
  2. Fenton: I finally got around to debugging this today, and it works perfectly. Thank you again for your help. I know that I would never have thought of this solution on my own, and your solution has opened up a whole new toolkit of techniques for me. Philip
  3. I think that would solve one phenomena I am seeing. I will add that into the script. The other problem I have is that I am not seeing any result in the calculation of the cAssignedIDs_VL (using the notation of your solution) where there are no assigned IDs for that record. I should at least see a space there. I think that this is an artefact of how I have implemented the solution.
  4. Fenton: Thanks. I think that this has solved the problem. That is, I understand the principle of the solution and have implemented it. My implementation is working correctly half the time, but I realize that the remaining problems are to do with some aspect of how I have implemented the solution.
  5. Situation: Tables I have a table of contacts, call it CONT. I am setting up a system for sending direct mail to some of my contacts. There are different direct mail programs, each targeted at a different group of contacts. So I have defined a table called DMGroup one record for each group of contacts. One group will contain multiple contacts; one contact can belong to multiple groups. So I have set up a join table DMGroupMembers. Its records contain only 3 fields: a primary key for this table and two foreign keys, one to the CONT table (fkey_cont) and one to the DMGroup table (fkey_dmgroup). Thus, each record in this table represents the membership of a CONT record to a DMGroup. Situation: Layout and Portals I have set up a layout that enables me to select (and deselect) the CONT members of a given DMGroup. At the top of the layout I can select the specific DMGroup of interest - via a popup menue, the key for the DMGroup goes into a global storage field. Below this field, I have two portals for the CONT table, one at the left and the other at the right. At the left, the portal shows candidate members for the DMGroup. On the right I have a portal showing the current members of the specific, chosen DMGroup. Setting up the relationships for the right portal has been easy: the global field containing the specific DMGroup key is linked to a TO for DMGroupMembers:fkey_dmgroup, and then this TO has a relationship linking DMGroupMembers:fkey_cont to the primary key of CONT. Problem The left portal, also based on a TO of CONT, currently shows all the records in CONT, but I want to exclude those records that are already a member of this DMGroup. For the life of me, I cannot think how to set up the relationship to do this. Another way of expressing the problem is as follows: the left portal should show all members of CONT that are not shown in the right portal. So if I can find a way for a TO of a given table to show the records that are NOT in another TO of the same table then I will be home. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
  6. Soren, Phil: I think that I have now solved the problem by taking some clues from your postings. I created a new layout that is linked to a TO of the target table that is related to the originating layout's TO (in the past I had used an unrelated layout/TO of the target table) and now the found set is exactly the imported records. I still do not understand why this should have fixed the problem, but I guess that enlightenment may come with time. Thank you for your help. Philip
  7. Soren: You are correct, I do have a "Go to Layout" step at the top of my script. The reason is that the layout where this script is called is not linked to the target table for the imported records. So I jump to layout that is linked to an (unrelated) TO of the target table. Could I ask you to explain one item in more detail? You wrote: What is a "receiving base" and how do I set it so that it is not empty? Philip
  8. Phil: Thanks, that will work. I do have an ID field in the record, so I will put it to good use. Philip
  9. I am fairly new to FM script writing, and am writing a script to (i) Import some records from an Excel spreadsheet into a table as new records in that table (ii) Set two fields in the imported records to specific values (but not change the field values in any records that existed prior to the import) Here is my problem. After I use the Import Records script step, I was hoping that the Found Set of records in my table would be only the imported records, and then I could step through the Found Set and use Set Field on my two fields. (Such a Found Set is what results from using the File -> Import Records -> File command). However, it seems that after using the Import Records script step, then the Found Set is all records in the table, not just the imported records. What script steps should I add to get the Found Set to be equal to the records that I have just imported? Note that the table includes a housekeeping field with a timestamp of the field creation time. So I was thinking that I could somehow use that to find records that have just been imported. Thank you!
  10. Thank you both for your fast response and insightful questions. I will try and explain the issue in more depth. This is part of a larger system that I am developing. In other parts of the system, for example where a technical expert must evaluate an individual patent, the expert must choose a rating level from drop down value list, which is driven from records of the RatingLevels table. However, in this part of the solution, where we are preparing reports to the company owning the patents, we may want to adjust our terminology so that it is the same as the terminology of the owner. Therefore, I wanted to be able to initially populate these fields with the default text rating levels, but then allow the user to over-ride these text entries if necessary. Additionally, as you have hypothesised, the system may gain greater granularity (or more likely we may change the default names for the rating levels) in the future, and I do not want these new defaults to over-write the data for existing reports that have already been sent out to patent owners, but I would want the new defaults to be written into the fields for new reports. I hope that this has clarified the explanation. Thank you for the suggestion on using the ValueListItems function. I will investigate this. There are two issues that I see with it: (i) I don't like putting a value list name hard coded inside a function call, because someone could easily edit the value list name in Filemaker without editing the function call, causing an error (ii) this puts all the values in one variable in a delimited list; I wanted them in separate variables or separate repetitions of a variable for using in merge fields in the report to the patent owner.
  11. I have a table called EvaluationTranches in which I store summary data about the valuation of groups ("tranches") of patents. The patents receive a rating on one of five levels: Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or No Value. I hold these five rating levels in a another table, called RatingLevels. For each record in the EvaluationTranches table, I have a repeating field called ratingLevelsRep[5] in which I would like to store the each of the different rating levels mentioned above (Excellent, Good, etc.) as text values. I want to use a lookup instead of just having a relation to the RatingLevels because this is transactional data that must be kept even if the RatingLevels table changes in the future. I am trying to work out how to do the definition for the lookup of these fields. Can anyone help me with an elegant solution? Many thanks!! One note: I don't necessarily have to use a repeating field in the EvaluationTranche table. If necessary, I can define 5 different fields.
  12. Thank you. I just implemented this and it works perfectly. You have made my day.
  13. I have a table of companies and a field in that table for the number of patents that the company has received in recent years. I want another field that calculates the rank of this particular company amongst companies in the table according to the number of patents it has received. i.e. the company with the most patents would be ranked 1, that with the second largest number of patents would be ranked 2, etc. I would like the calculation to update when a new company is added to the table and to be available in a variety of layouts and contexts. I figured that I could add a self-join relationship on the number of patents field with an inequality (i.e. to relate to all companies with patents greater than or equal to the patents of this company) and then use a count function; however, I was looking for a way that would not require me to add a new relationship, and hence would not be layout/context dependent. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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