Jump to content

Relationships in Web-Enabled DB


peverson
 Share

This topic is 5732 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.

Recommended Posts

  • Newbies

I enabled Instant Web Publishing for my db, but the relationships do not function properly when people access it online. Is there a problem with Web Companion and relationships? Or is there some preference or work-around?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without much information (more would be useful, hint hint), I would probably conclude that your problem is not with the relationships, but with your scripts. I conclude this because AFAIK, there's nothing wrong with relationships in IWP. My experience is that if I use a script that has even one non-web-compatible command in it, the DB will not work.

You need to give more information if this doesn't get you on your way: how does the failure manifest itself? What is your app doing? Etc., etc.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Newbies

I am not using any scripts. I have related fields.

When I select a department code in the first field (Department), that determines the name that pops up in the second field (no field name), which then determines the list of choices in the field called KPI. I hope that you can see what I am talking about in the attached jpg. In FMP, the relationships work perfectly (photo 1), but when I put the db online (photo 2), the second and third field choices do not display at all. The third picture displays the relationships.

peverson.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at your screenshots, something certainly looks odd. Specifically, I see "BUS" in the first screen, but I see "BUS 9713" in the same location in the IWP screen shot. I don't know how that could happen. Is it possible that the field is there, but hidden behind something else, like a backing field?

As an aside, I see that your Main table has redundant fields for different fiscal years. You might want to split those out as individual records in a separate table (although that will require more of those relationships!). Then you won't have to change the database structure if you make it to the next FY.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is 5732 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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