Jump to content

jadenguy

Members
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jadenguy

  • Rank
    novice
  1. wouldn't that allow for .5? i don't think there is a circumstance where .5 would somehow get entered, and am assuming there is would be script or procedure to create these forgivenesses, so if(forgive) seems like the safest choice. after a bit of thought, perhaps expressing forgiveness as a percent bound between 0 and 1 would be even better! then you can partially forgive somebody. you know, "this is the second time this happened but i get that this time it was under more serious circumstances, so i'll knock half off." dunno if that ever comes up?
  2. i'd use 0 for forgive and then simply multiply the result by forgive, assuming the other choice is 1. or if(forgive) if it's not 1. dunno if that makes sense to everyone.
  3. on further consideration, it makes graphics fuzzy, even if you selected don't stretch. the solution might be scaled graphics via repetitions, but whatever.
  4. well, it's fixed, but i have no idea how the problem arose. regardless of the fact that i don't know how to upload a file to these forums, the file contains sensitive corporate data and i can't even reproduce the bug in a new file. the page i created has lots of elements and it actually takes seconds to render on this machine. i know timing bugs are uncommon, but i've seen them myself a few times. the thing with repetitions was sort of a bad joke i guess...
  5. i know this is old, but a good solution i found for the two resolutions that i always encounter is to zoom all 1024 x 768 to 200 and zoom 1260 x 1024 to 150. what you'd want to do is to set the ratios of the two resolutions (probably horizontally due to vertical scrolling being infinitely easier with scroll wheels) to the ratio of the zoom levels. i've worked out a bunch of common resolutions' and all the resolutions' ratios for easier comparison. the reason i chose those was due in part to an excel file showing me that there were three zoom ratios that were 1.33:1 and the horizontal ra
  6. yeah, that was actually the final solution, and the creation tracking was also included but i wasn't sure if it was germane to the problem. but yeah, apparently it's not enough to have the sales rep viewable via <> and you have to have an actual field. are <<>> field references or whatever something people use around here or is it disliked like repetitions? regardless, it may be because i have the SLOWEST computer in the whole company, or it might be a legitimate bug/feature in filemaker, but i'm something unexpected was going on...
  7. well, the job is only imprinted with the name of the sales rep that was assigned to the client at the time of entry, so we know who was the person that actually worked on the file, instead of the current sales rep for the client. it might be advantageous to have both bits of info, so that the new rep could see the client's history... regardless, i'm really just working out the kinks of the database i've taken over while i work on the databse i'd like to implement with proper structure and stuff. now regarding a join table, wouldn't i only use this if i had multiple sales reps to a s
  8. i'm not sure what a join table is.
  9. is there a way to have two months of search happen? or a date range?
  10. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/community/columns/security/essays/10imlaws.mspx?mfr=true law 3 if they have their hands on every 0 and 1 in that database, the data is theirs with enough tenacity, unless you have really complex crypto involved, in which case you refer to law 7. that said, i'd dynamically generate a customized stripped out version of the database that has only the information they need, along with the time thing to help weed out the dumbest of sales people, then other tricks to keep putting walls up. but like i said, if they have access to all the 0s and 1s
  11. i'm severily lacking in the brains department here! SOLUTION: have a field for sales rep on the layout i'm working with. i had one of those <> things so it wasn't editable via script and lookup i guess isn't fast enough without that (i am surprised at how often i have to worry about calculation speed in this crappy computer i'm using here at work...)
  12. truth be told i'm thinking of scrapping the whole database; a previous employee designed and made it all himself, with little experience in coding and database management. it's surprisingly functional, but i don't think he know about the permissions tab, or calculations, or very much about relationships. i'm currently delving deep into the whole relationships thing, and i plan on having it work that way eventually, but for now i want to get one feature i've been working on working before i start redesigning everything from the ground up. the client list is not editable by the sales staff, a
  13. can i have it autoenter AND lookup the value? other people will be able to enter jobs for them, is the real issue i suppose. but thanks for clearing up the root of the problem. i always have a problem with commitment.
  14. job table fields of importance: job number (ID) client sales rep address terms client table fields: client sales rep address terms i have client = client, and a dropdown box in the job entry form with each client's name. when they add a new job, the client's name is the first thing they select. everything else is set to lookup the value and be unmodifiable. i then have the sales reps' view access to sales rep = get(accountname). if i'm using an account that doesn't have the view restriction, the job looks up perfectly, and the sales reps can see the jobs no
  15. i've got a table of sales people, a table of clients, and a table of sales (jobs). when the sales people enter new jobs, they have view only on their clients, and view only on their sales. when they select the client, the sales person is supposed to automatically be inserted (for when somebody else enters jobs in for the sales people). well, it's failing to lookup the sales rep from the viewable client table. is it because they can't view/modify the job before they select the client? because when they select the client, it does add that to the job, but just fails to lookup the rest of the
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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