Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
William Slim

Broken References

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

Figures for broken references differ completely on the Report Card vs the 'Broken References' node if FMPerception. Some figures, such as 'Impacted Layouts' are empty in the report card '--' yet may have '24' in the Broken Refs node.

What is the difference between them/how should they be interpreted? 

I'm guessing the node should be relied upon but I'm having difficulty tying up figures between the two even at a headline level. In this particular instance: 'Fields Impacted' on the report card states '15' yet <Field Missing> and 'Empty Field Reference' are both in the 60's.

Thanks in advance,

Lee

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Lee.  Great question.

The Broken References top level query is organized by the kind of error that is encountered, but provides very little assistance for where there errors are encountered.  So, for example, an "Empty Layout Reference" is commonly found in a Go To Layout or Go To Related Record step that was pointed to a layout that no longer exists...  But that could appear in any of the following:

  • Script step
  • Single step layout object button 
  • Single step Menu item

So, if you wanted to fix all the "Empty Layout Reference" items, you might have to go all over the place to do it.  Some users requested the ability to tackle broken references by where they occur, rather than by type of error.  So, "let me go to a particular layout and fix all the issues there (regardless of the kind of issue) before moving to another layout."  The Report Card breakdown of Broken References is designed to assist with this.  Additionally, I can use my own knowledge of a system to filter that list.  So, if I have a bunch of Impacted Layouts, I can click on that to look at the layout list.  The names of those layouts may tell me that I don't have to prioritize fixing these, as I tagged the Layout names with "[DEPRECATED]" (my personal favorite code for tagging items that are not in use, but that I haven't gotten around to deleting yet). Or, all issues may be on my Main Menu layout...  A serious problem that I should address immediately, one way or another.

The behavior difference between the two lists is also more in line with how I see the Report Card working.  If I'm about to sit down with a customer, a sense of what user elements are effected by this issue is far more useful to me than a technical explanation of the kinds of issues.

So, in the end, if those numbers match between the two different representations of Broken References, it is purely coincidental, because they're reporting two different things.

 

If that does not answer your question, please let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your explanation. I should have said what I was trying to do:

After initial analysis of a DDR for a system I'd like to say to a client: "We've found 'X' issues in your system that may need fixing/investigating" - initially I thought the Report Card did this, reconsidering, and from what you've said, I see the Report Card (broken references) shows the number of actual items affected - (counting unique instances of script names seems to confirm this). 

Also caution should be taken when looking at say: Impacted Layouts 0%  (there may be many layout object issues that indirectly affect layouts)

So to get the total number of occurrences of issues, you'd need to extract that from the Broken Refs node.

(correct me if I'm wrong)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you are correct that some of the issues might have indirect references.  For example, if a script has a problem, it might be inferred that any layout (or menu item, or other script) that calls that script also has a problem... But that's beyond the scope of the current functionality.  What I don't want to do is tell a user that there is a problem in Script X, when the problem is that it validly calls Script Y, and Script Y is the one that actually has the problem.  The "Impacted" list is more about where you have to go to fix the issue.

The total number of occurrences of issues is on the first line of the Broken References section of the report card.  That number should be equal to the sum of the items on the Broken References query node.  If I were talking to a customer, I would either quote them that first number form the report card, or I would quote the sum of the other lines on the report card.  So either "here are the number of issues", or "here are the number of FileMaker objects that are objectively broken in some manner".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Siva D
      Is there any way to get the list of scripts that having webdirect incompatible script steps in FMPerception? It will be helpful when converting the existing FMP layout/scripts to webdirect.
    • By NewBoard
      I have a form in which users make measurements of multiple parts, then input the max and min measurements. I then have conditional formatting that compares these maxes and mins to the hard mins and maxes for that part. If the inputted max is larger than the hard max, or the inputted min is smaller than the hard min; the conditional formatting is supposed to highlight that measurement in red. This has worked in almost every case I have tested so far, except for one strange case. I have a hard min of 9.8, and my user is attempting to input 10 as the min. FileMaker is highlighting this in red, even though 10 is larger than 9.8. When we change it 9.9 it isn't red, but 10.1 makes it red as well. I have no idea why this is happening, so any assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated!

    • By Dave Ramsey
      Hello, my ad-hoc steering committee...
      I'm shortly going to be tackling allowing an override of the default sort order.  Once implemented, there would be a preference to override the default sort order for all(-ish) queries to sort alphabetically, rather than by export / creation order.  I would love to get some feedback on this idea, in particular that I'm not either targeting too narrowly or too broadly.
      My thought is that this could be best implemented using 3 checkboxes.
      Sort almost everything alphabetically by default Sort Layouts alphabetically by default Sort Scripts alphabetically by default I think that for most users, sorting fields, TOs, references, etc by name by default will not cause a problem.  Most of them won't even need a preference for that.  They'd like it always on.  I have, however, identified users that would like to retain general access to the imported sort order.
      I've identified Scripts and Layouts as two elements that very commonly are manually ordered.  Most developers will group similar layouts and scripts, even assuming that they have a naming convention that would allow for meaningful interaction with these elements (say, Scripts) alphabetically.
      I also don't think there's any value to sorting Layout Objects in anything other than import order (by default), as the import order is a parent-child aware z-order.
      I'm also thinking that this will necessitate the addition of a column in the Results pane that stores the creation / import ordinal so that you have the ability to restore that order (or reverse that order) if necessary for a single query.
      Questions:
      Can you think of any other elements within FileMaker whose creation / manual order is far more important than their alphabetical order? This is oft requested enough that I'm considering changing the first checkbox (sort most items alphabetically) to ON by default.  I think I will have fewer users asking how to change it back than I currently have users asking how to turn it on.  Thoughts? While neither the Hierarchy Browser nor the Columnar Browser have a base implementation for overriding the sort order on an area by area basis, I might try to invent one if there's huge desire for it.  I still that most users will never tweak the default, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. In a fever-dream, I thought that instead of adding checkboxes to the preferences, I would add menu items that could be toggled on and off.  This only becomes of use if somebody sees being able to override this on a document-by-document basis, and really regularly, as a critical requirement.  If this is you, I'd like to hear from you.  I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of users will turn it on, and never mess with it.  Most will never even override that default sort to use the new import ordinal column.
      Any other thoughts or ideas related to this topic would be most appreciated.
       
      Thank you very much,
      Dave Ramsey
    • By chiyo
      Evernote has been a true game changer for me. I think it's such an amazing tool it deserves it's own place to share how we're using it.
       
      Here's a quick description of the way I'm using it recently - but I may change my organization over time. I'm interested in how you all are using it and has anyone done integration with FM with the Evernote API.
       
       
      How I'm working with it:
       
      • Client Info: I create a notebook per client. I like to keep a NOTE for all business logic, language, etc...
       
      • Features: I often set up 1 NOTE to store historical notes on a single page.
       
      • UI Design Screenshots: I create a note with before and after screen shots, since evernote does OCR on images you can search for a word that might appear on a layout screen shot for finding it again later, for reference.
       
      • Workflow Screenshots: As I work I screenshot before and after graph work or relationship settings, scripts when working fast and wanting to quickly capture changes. Just did a huge data migration and captured screenshots at given points to slow myself down and double check my work. I could see if I had "Add new records" selected. A bit crazy but I appreciated it slowing me down just a bit and forced me to stick to a rule I try to live by, check it 3 x. For the data migration project it was helpful to see the record counts and a bit of import mapping. An odd use case but something I tried.
       
      • Wiki-like Topic Notes: I have a FileMaker notebook, inside that I have a NOTE per TOPIC, like SQL and I'll put most of my links on 1 page for quick reference but I'm not sure if that's better than having individual notes. I guess I'm using it a bit like a wiki. I like it because instead of having to read a really long list of notes within my FileMaker notebook - I can get right to my favorite SQL notes.
       
      I could go on and on here... I will pause and come back when I have some more time. Must leave the forum for a bit.
       
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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