Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About dmontano

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Southern California

Recent Profile Visitors

2,855 profile views
  1. Disregard this - I figured it out with a global field and a script trigger.
  2. I have a field configured with field validation - set to a maximum of 55 characters. I would like to display some visual feedback to the person entering data when they have exceeded this limit. Since the validation occurs after the field is exited, it's not very smooth throwing an error dialogue after they have typed beyond the limit. I am unable to provide visual feedback while they type. It would be helpful to display the text in black as the type while under the limit, and maybe display the overset portion in red text. Any techniques for this?
  3. eos, Thank you for taking the time to put this together. I am going to delve into this to try and understand it. Much appreciated!
  4. Hi eos, Two questions: ASSOCIATION EVENT would contain what type of records? Examples would be helpful.Would ASSOCIATION TYPE have records such as: synonymous, hyponymy, meronymy, etc.?As for scripting the Find, I did not know if FIleMaker provided what I was looking for via the creation of some sort of value list using a calculation, "native" function, or relationship technique that would prevent the creation of a script. If a script is the only way to provide the functionality, then I am learning as I go.
  5. From a User perspective, I can imagine a couple of scenarios: 1) They wish to search for what words have an association with other words. A drop-down list showing 1 instance of each unique word would indicate what words have an association. User selects drop down and sees CAR, they select it and takes them to any word association record, where a neighboring portal could display ALL other words associated with CAR. 2) User wishes to search for specific word, for example, CAR. They enter find mode, select CAR from drop-down and they would get the same experience whether they are browsing or searching. I was hoping there was a way of "aggregating" the values in WORD-FIRST field with WORD-SECOND field for all records in WORD ASSOCIATION table and deliver that as a drop-down list where User selects a WORD and a record matching it appears. The neighboring portal (not sure if that is in the sample I attached) would take car of displaying ALL other WORD ASSOCIATIONS related to the found record. Any ideas?
  6. Hi all, Attached is a sample file that contains the problem I am trying to solve. In short, I would like a value list to display in FIND MODE all of the WORDS that have been used in creating WORD ASSOCIATIONS. The table is WORD ASSOCIATION: a WORD can be associated with another WORD. For example: CAR is associated with VEHICLE (a synonymous association). I have the "creation" of a WORD ASSOCIATION functioning. I also have drop down value lists in "find" mode for each of the two WORD fields functioning: they show only the values that exist within their respective fields. However, a User should be able to (in "find" mode) select from a single drop-down list that displays ALL of the WORDs that have been used in WORD ASSOCIATIONs - whether the WORD was created as a WORD-FIRST, or WORD-SECOND. I have hacked away at this without success. I have tried using the LIST function, which seems to "kinda-work". It does display all WORDs used in WORD ASSOCIATIONs when a User is in find mode, however, right after making the selection, the WORD selected is not displayed correctly consistently (I believe when selecting a WORD, it is really selecting the WORD ASSOCIATION pair of WORDs, and is really showing one word of the WORD ASSOCIATION pair. The WORD from the pair that is alphabetically closer to A seems to be what is displayed in the field). The result of the FIND operation is correct, but the display is hosed up. I strongly suspect there is a proper way to do this and I am failing on that front. Can anyone help with this? Thanks sample_file.fmp12
  7. Hi Comment, Sorry for the delay in saying thanks for your contribution. I like the idea of the GTRR. What I like most about it is it seems that it does not matter whether your relations are in a recursive single entity type table or separate entity type tables. Thanks
  8. Hi Comment, Apologies for not being clear. What I have so far: Database Structure: One table, "Category Type"; second table, "Category". Category Type is related to 1 or more Category(s). Category Type is recursive to provide the hierarchical structuring of Category Type(s). Likewise, Category is recursive to provide the hierarchical structuring of Category(s). I anticipate this will provide the ability to generate a text file of: the leaf node, the intermediary nodes, and the root node for 1 category. The directory folder structure will use the values from "Category", not "Category Type". What I don't have: 1. The method of generating the text path. I thought I would create a calculation that would display the path from child node up through its lineage to the root. I think that is within my capabilities, but maybe it requires more than that. I was thinking this would be a calculated field in the "Category" table. 2. The method of collecting all path information (the calculated field result in "Category" table) that emanate from a particular node selected as the "starting point". To clarify, if given a tree with a hundred nodes, distributed among 5 levels; a user may select a node somewhere in the middle as the point in which they want directory folders created from that point down. This would exclude the nodes that are sibling to the node they selected, and by default exclude the sibling nodes as well. Once all path information collected, either export to a text-only file for AppleScript or VBscript to process its contents; or maybe it should be held in a temp field, cache within Filemaker to prevent the need of creating a text-only document on user workstation for Applescript or VB script to act on? 3. The method of generating the directory folder structure from the paths collected by step 2 above. I thought using Applescript for Mac environment, and VBscript for the PC environment to make the directory folders was appropriate - maybe not. Thanks!
  9. Hi all,  I need help. I am willing to pay someone who can build the script.  I need a script that will work on Mac / PC that will generate a nested directory folder set from the records in my database. The nested directory folder set can reside on a users desktop after the script is finished executing for now.  The records that are used for the directory folder names are related in a parent child arrangement in filemaker - so the hierarchy for these records exists. Each record will contain a text field that is to be used as the label for each directory folder created.  I think the solution lies in AppleScript and VB Script. I do not have the capability of making those either. I would be very grateful if someone could get this working for me.  Attached is a screenshot of dummy data so you can get a sample of what I need the script to generate.  Thanks, David  Edited to include the attachment.
  10. Thanks Comment, I will build conditional value lists similar to the example file with fields in the OBJECT table to facilitate the "auxiliary" relationships. As for the globals route - I will toss that out based on your comment. And the "native" relationship magic I was hoping was hiding somewhere in the value list options is now off my wondering mind. However, your last statement has peaked my interest: Would you elaborate on this a bit?
  11. When creating conditional value lists - similar to the file provided by Comment above where the values for each drop-down are stored in separate tables — is it a requirement to store the foreign keys in the OBJECT table? It seems to me that the only purpose of creating the foreign key fields of "continent" and "country" in the OBJECT table is to facilitate the feature of providing a conditional value list. A few questions: 1) Is it possible to provide the conditional value list feature with global fields instead? Are there any downsides to doing so in a multi-user environment, or any other situation? 2) Since the relationships between all of the tables (CONTINENT < COUNTRY < CITY < OBJECT) already exists prior to creating the conditional value list, it makes me wonder if there is not a way to provide this feature without the additional TOs and foreign key fields inside of the OBJECT table to provide this functionality. Is it possible instead to build these conditional value lists where FileMaker is using the initial table relationships? I am asking because I need the conditional value list feature and having to create additional TOs and foreign key fields just for this feature seems like there has to be a more "native" way. I guess my concern is that foreign key fields and their values are being stored in the OBJECT table and that seems redundant. Ultimately, it would be comforting to know what the "best practice" is for building a conditional value list when multiple tables are involved, so I can stop wondering if I should be doing it a different way. Thanks in advance.
  12. Thanks Comment, appreciate your insight. I'm in the middle of trying to rework the database to accommodate what's been discussed.
  13. Hi Michael, My bad: the communication problem is mine. I am trying to build a classification application. This application needs to be able to manage all of the Categories, the Category Types in which Categories belong to, the way the Categories Rollup and the way the Category Types Rollup in a hierarchical manner. These would be all bound together in a particular Scheme. So far, I have a prototype that seems to be coming together reasonably well. The more I work with it, the more it is coming together, but it is a slow road. Two things are becoming more clear as I progress: 1) Creating VERSIONS of a scheme are needed. This was not clear to me until the discussion with you as shown above. 2) In the real world, "Classification Schemes" do not necessarily conform to a rigid structure throughout. An example of this is "Bacteria". "Bacteria" is considered a member of both a "Domain" and a "Kingdom". This translates into my data model as such (Bold all cap words are tables): CATEGORY: Bacteria (a member of) CATEGORY TYPE: Domain CATEGORY: Bacteria (a member of) CATEGORY TYPE: Kingdom Not to speak in DB or FileMaker terms, but the above indicates that a Category like "Bacteria" is considered to be a member of two different Category Types: "Domain" and Kingdom". This is infrequent, but the issue arises and creates, in essence, two records that have the same name. A good example of what I am trying to build would an application that would replicate the Biological Classification as shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification I consider it to be a "Scheme" with a "Scheme Name" of: Biological Classification Scheme. I have attached a quick diagram (with sample records) of what I have built so far. What is not in the diagram - is VERSIONS. Anyways, maybe the diagram can more clearly show what I have so far. Thanks diagram_classification.pdf
  14. Ugh! I suspected there was some other issue underlying my problem. I am assuming that if I made the Scheme Version table, then to display the Scheme Versions that have the same Scheme Name… it becomes a simple matter of displaying a portal of the Scheme Version table on my Scheme layout. Which leads me to suspect that ALL of my current related child tables of Scheme (a good half-dozen) will require a retrofit. Are my assumptions correct?
  • Create New...

Important Information

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