Hi all,

Hope you can help me out on this one. I have a portal set up based on 2 databases:

Parts Replaced

New Jobs

This is setup for PC repairs. As a part inside a PC is replaced, a new record is added to the parts replaced database - Serial number of PC, Part replaced, Date replaced - this works out the new warranty on that part (Part replaced + 12 months)

Now, when a new job is added onto the New Jobs database, the serial number of the PC is entered into the DB. The portal is designed to show all parts that have been replaced that are still in warranty, obviouslt getting this information from the parts replaced DB.

I setup a field in Parts Replaced:

PartStatus - this is the serial number of the PC + Y or N depending on whether the part is still in warranty or not.

I then setup a field in New Jobs, kind of like a constant:

PartStatus - serial number + Y

The relationship setup is then based onb the 2 matching.

Now my portal works but doesnt work correctly...

Say I have a PC - serial number 123456

On the 1/6/01 the Floppy Drive was replaced

The record in Parts Replaced shows 123456N as Part Status I.e. its no longer in warranty)

On the 1/12/03 the Hard Drive was replaced

The record in Parts Replaced shows 123456Y as Part Status I.e. it is still in warranty

On the 9/3/03 the CD Drive was replaced

The record in Parts Replaced shows 123456Y as Part Status I.e. it is still in warranty

All OK. Right now in my portal is should show that the Hard Drive and Floppy Drive are still under warranty when this serial nuber is typed in for a new job. The portal does in fact show 2 records (it has picked up that 2 parts are still under warranty for this PC) but the portal is going wrong in that both portal rows shows the Flopy Drive.

So it has found that 2 parts are still under warranty so displays 2 portal rows.

But it enters Floppy Drive as the part under warranty for both Portal Rows, when in fact the Floppy Drive is NOT under warranty.

It seems that it finds the correct number of parts but then displays the first record found for this serial number for each portal row.

Is it obvious to anyone where I have gone wrong with this?

Many thanks

Ed.

Sorry everyone, I'm tired! it's the old slip up of using the field from the current file in the portal, rather than using the field from the portals relationship file.

Sorry for any time wasted

Ed.