Disappearing Titles

[scolesm]

Hello,

I have a layout with a series of repeating fields. Each field has a title included above it.

Ex.

Things I Like

Cars

Sports

Penguins

Earmuffs

But for all the records that I have, some of these repeating fields are left completely empty. I'm wondering if there's a way I can make these titles not appear if the field is empty. I've tried a calculation, treating the rep field as a boolean, to no avail, like this: If (Passions; "Things I Like"; "")

where Passions is the repeating field of Cars, Sports...

Any suggestions?

Thanks,

M

[IdealData]

Ditch the repeating fields - you'll hear this from just about every one here.

Use a related table - that way it's not possible to have a none-existant entry. Use the "title" as the key for your relationship.

[scolesm]

Haha, yeah I know repeating fields are the devil, but I believe I need them for this project.

The database is something that people at my company that don't know a thing about FileMaker will be doing and having one page that they select and enter all the data on is the only way I can go. Repeating fields are the only thing I know of that allow such one-sided data entry. If this isn't the case, I'd love to know.

Thanks,

M

[LaRetta]

Repeating fields are the only thing I know of that allow such one-sided data entry.

It depends upon what you mean by one-sided data-entry. List views also allow it but so do portals. Repeating fields will cause you untold grief. Go related or even Value Lists (I'm a bit unclear on what you are describing). But don't use repeating fields; truly.

If you wish to post an example of what you have so far, we can make suggestions. I can't quite tell how your Users will be entering the data. We need a bit more information ...

[scolesm]

Yes, I've both expected and gotten much harrasment about my use of those silly repeated fields

What I mean to use them for is to allow the end user to select/enter all data from one of two main pages. I don't want to trust whoever has to use this to go to multiple different layouts to enter data solely because I fear it may confuse them (trust no one).

Here's a basic example (sorry I'm not capable of showing the full one). The Spec and C of A are the only things the user will have access to.

Any other suggestions for solutions are welcome, but keep in mind they have to look good (no large empty spaces).

Thanks a lot for your help,

M

ProductsEx.zip

[Søren Dyhr]

Your have to expand on this one...

but keep in mind they have to look good (no large empty spaces).

If there is something a repeating field allows you to do is it, to write in whatever corner you wish to neglecting empty spaces above, below ...wherever.

You have to distinguise between appearances when whirling stuff thru the printer and inputing raw data into your solution. Indeed things can look terrible when printing a portal, at least the ones with scrollbars, but there exists an established procedure by writing from the found set on the foreign side of the matter.

The trouble you see is based on a pretty casual and guessed relational structure bearing more resemblance with linking of spreadsheets than what you would expect from a relational system.

Then to your question, yes you can make calcfields that acts as keyfields for a relation, this relation allows you to draw an invisible portal around the object you wish to make conditionally dissapeare ...the reason the invisible portal stops showing anything is when the relation gets invalid.

http://www.filemakerpros.com/Visible.zip

My guess is that we're speaking to the deafest pair of ears availiable when dissuading you from repeaters ...but I would easily make your dealings happen with portals and related data ...but it makes no sense if you think we're herassing your, but you're obviously pulling on a long established Mayfair'ish tradition of hubris.

But perhaps you should consider, that getting help to something approached in such a bysantine way ...might only be possible if others have the same sense of predestination excluding them from logical reason!

Feel free to make whatever you think filemaker is, but do not expect help if you're pulling it out of it's realm. What do you think is the odds are to find an unrecognized genius within repeaters? It's very strongheaded to expect that every one here never ever have humbled themself to actually examine the tools availiable instead of saying "It's a pancake baker, no doubt about it"

--sd

[scolesm]

I'm sorry to have gotten off this way. I was only making a joke when referring to the harrasment I mentioned, as I had looked into it and noticed the problems with repeating fields. I make no intention to seem deaf, I was merely foolish enough to believe that I had found a situation where they could work with satisfaction. If I've offended anyone with my ignorance, I do apologize.

I fear I simply don't understand portals fully enough to see their possibility. I had originally created this with portals, yet I saw no way of allowing entry to them from one Layout, which is essential to this end product. When I was using portals, the relationships were similar, yet linked through an intermediary layout, which I was trying to avoid.

I still have my portalled version but do not know how to change it in such a way that when somebody has a new product, that they can enter it all from one place.

I'm sorry it took so long to set me straight, but if this is possible, I would greatly appreciate advice on doing so. I am attaching my old portal format to see if that will help.

Again, my sincere apologies and thanks,

M

Edit: Alright, now I concede fully. What I think I now want to do (having put more thought towards portals) is allow creation of new records. The fact that I previously thought this could not happen is what led me to mistakenly believe that repeating fields were still useful.

Thanks for putting up with me this long! Boy is my face red. :)

PMF_Copy.zip

[sbg2]

Why is it essential to have all data entry done on one layout? Honestly, having that much information on one screen makes the data entry more tedious in my opinion. Why not give them a tabbed layout which they should be familiar with if they have ever used a computer. Or maybe there is some other reason you feel you absolutely need all this information on one very large screen?

[scolesm]

Having all entry on one layout was a request of my superior. I'm now seeing that I do agree with you and it's not the most feasible way.

Tabs sound like a good idea. Would you then suggest having the '***** per Spec' portals all tabbed out on one layout with a key (forgive me if I'm misusing that word) of the Item Number?

[sbg2]

I would suggest a seperate layout for each tab, example attached. I don't have version 8 so I had to make the tabs manually. All the Tabs but the "Full" go to their respective layout but only the "Blend" and "Fatty" are complete. It should at least give you an idea of what I mean. The "Full" tab could be used to meet the original request for one layout with all the info.

PMF_Tab.zip

[Søren Dyhr]

I'm fully with sbg2, when he suggest a tabbed layout - for entry at least. If we then look at the threads title, is it getting more and more obivous that all the portals contents shows different aspects of the same related table.

What it can convey is a subsummary'ish report from the related should use the foreignID as breaker field for a printed output.

The table has beyond the straight forward fields, a herd of unstored GetField( or Choose( which act on the type of foreignKey. This way will each subsummary header be pulled in accordingly ...and omitted if no use exists - but measures against blank records are required. I have for illustrational purposes made a template, showing the approach I have in mind.

An I have even included some Socratic noise by actually using repeating field in the solution, because it makes sense to use them for utility purposes... and I must remember to apologize the rudimentary graphics - but they have hardly any connection to the technique demonstrated!

Enjoy, and please don't hessitate to ask further if required!

--sd

Omitting_headers.zip

[Søren Dyhr]

Shame on me! I have forgotten to make the 3 display fields in my template UNSTORED, it isn't enough they're unindexed ...it's plain and simple waste of storage....

Please fix this blunder - if you download!

--sd

[Inky Phil]

Tut Tut :)

[scolesm]

Alright, here's where my file's finally gone.

I pray this is the right path!

Thanks to everybody

M

One question about the Button in Data Entry:

Is there a way to script a button so that it affects all related records in the portal (look at the buttons and it should be clear what I'm trying to do).

Edit: I'm taking a look at the header file right now

PMFv0.8_Copy.zip

Edited June 28, 2006 by Guest
Update

[Søren Dyhr]

Shouldn't "Blend Ingredients...." dissapeare on your Spec-layout when no related records existed??

Then to your question.

s there a way to script a button so that it affects all related records in the portal

Goto Related Record(show only)

Loop

set field[.....

Go To Next Record[exit after last]

End Loop

--sd

[scolesm]

Haha. Yes you're completely correct in that it should disappear. I've gotten so sidetracked with making this with the right relationships that I forgot the actual title of this thread.

I'm looking at your file right now and I'm just taking a while to figure it out.

Edit:

Sorry if my scripting skills are poor, but I can't find a Proper way to exit

I've got:

Go To Related Record [show only...from EFAs per Spec; using Current Layout]

Loop

Set Field [EFAs...]

Go To Record [Next]

Exit Loop If [is Empty ( *SOMETHING*)

End Loop

[Søren Dyhr]

It has been there ever since 2.1 I think, but I named it wrongly it's:

Go to Record/Request/Page [ Next; Exit after last ]

...sorry the confusion!

--sd

[scolesm]

I've changed the script to

Go To Related Record[show only related records; Match Found Set; from EFA per Spec; using current layout]

Loop

Set Field [mg per g...]

Go To Record [Next; exit after last]

End Loop

And it only changes the last value in the table

Thanks,

M

Edit

Actually, sorry, it changes one of the middle values and puts it last because it's now lowest

Is there a problem with my go to related record?

It's also informing me that my tab layout can't display the result. In seeing this I made it display in the EFA per spec layout. I simply accepted that and made it go back to my data record

Sorry and thanks

Edited June 28, 2006 by Guest

[Søren Dyhr]

Ah! there should have been a:

Go to Record/Request/Page [ First ]

...before the Loop starts there must be a sortorder playing tricks with my assumptions!

It's also informing me that my tab layout can't display the result.

Pick the correct portal relationship for each tab and fields accordingly, not every portal will behave (in layoutmode is it said in the lower left corner what relationship it show records from.

If you somewhere have a relation done that is between two different table occurences, will the relation not work, since every layout is tied to one single TO, and not a table as such.

I wonder if you have downloaded my template, very few had at present (2) and I did one of them to see if I had made been too sloopy with my fields defs.?

--sd

[scolesm]

Yes, I did look at your template. I'm still a little confused about those disappearing titles, but it turns out it may not be that critical.

My new problem (I don't know why I couldn't find it elsewhere in this forum) is that because my portals slide, they print across page boundaries, which isn't that pleasant.

I've heard some things about not printing portals, but don't understand how I can't.

Whenever I put in a sub-summary to put a page break in, in preview mode, everything above it disappears.

Any advice here?

Thanks for the help,

M

My, this thread is meandering.

Edit: the layouts I want to be printable are Spec and C of A

If I could make a subsummary with page break work, putting it between Nutritional Information and Microbial Limits should work. I don't think the entries will be so many as to put the Nutritional Info on the next page, but I do realize that making this guess is also sloppy programming.

Edit2: Sorry, with further analyzation of your file, I see that I think it can be done without portals. Can it be done with them? Or must I recreate my Spec and C of A sheets like in the example?

Edited June 28, 2006 by Guest
Clarification

[scolesm]

Hi there,

Alright, now I realize how useless my last post sounded considering the Omitting Headers file.

Despite having it, I'm still not sure what the steps are in implementing something like it into my own file though. I see that my Data Entry is mysteriously similar to the Omitting Headers layout.

It's the creation of my own version of Layout #3 that confuses me. I'll be trying to figure this out. Where I'm confused is that while all of the tabs in Omitting Headers are similar, the ones that I'm using are not.

Any help welcomed

Thanks again,

M

[Søren Dyhr]

Alright, now I realize how useless my last post sounded considering

Don't worry I havn't paid attention to any posts for some hours!

It's the creation of my own version of Layout #3 that confuses me

I tend to use the wizzard, and then change it until I reach a agreeable behaviour.

But you have caught the idea of pulling in values from various field based on which breaker shows up in the listing??

I have used the knowledge that there with each record is made 5 primary keys that comes sequentially - this makes the Choose( posible, but if you deside on another way of generating keys, could you use a Case( statement for the purpose.

Perhaps should I repeat my point, when advising not to interchange the functionality of a entry and the print-out or final document.

If you struggling too much should I gladly fill you in with details in the chosen approach. But remember to descripe where your aims differs from what I do, something I thought you would stumble over right away was the fieldtypes used ...they can indeed be tricky when timeformat and scientific notation is involved.

Instead of the calcs used, could <> values be utilized, to maintain each fields special styles ...the thing is that a long string of mergefields containing null values will shift the following data to the left. But it's an extra layer of trickery ontop of the relational stuff which are king at present, and would probably be too tough to decipher.

--sd

[scolesm]

Thanks for the response.

I believe that I can understand how you draw values based on the breaker.

Where I freeze up every time is after I choose the Columnar List/Report, I don't know how to properly specify the fields in my layout. (Do I want to use a Report with Grouped Data?) The example you provided looks good, but is more uniform than the data I'm entering. It has the luxury of all tabs being the same.

As you can see by the data I'm trying to display, my portals contain anywhere from one to nine fields, all of different sizes. This lack of uniformity is what has been confusing me in creating the new report. How can I organize it so that for a portal with one field it lists all data (with the proper size) as well as for a portal with nine?

Thanks again, you're swifly becoming my new hero

M

[Søren Dyhr]

my portals contain anywhere from one to nine fields, all of different sizes.

Ah! you just said it, perhaps we should reach out for mergefields instead???

--sd

[scolesm]

Haha, thanks!

So, would this solution then have nine merge fields (Display1, Display2, Display3, Display4 etc.), where if there's only one field to enter, it goes in Display1, but where there's nine it would fill in all of them?

M

[Søren Dyhr]

No no, mergefields in "trains" are replacing the Display fields entirely. But in order to work need the values to be padded with spaces after each field, to prevent collapsing values.

Examine this template, see what happens to the text when hittin one of the NULL maker buttons. Next thing to notice is that the firt char in each "carriage" wears the styling...

--sd

test_fp7.zip

[Genx]

The reason people tell you to not print portals is because their content is not really very dynamic, i.e. if you set it to 10 rows, it will print 10 rows whether you have more content or less content.

In the mean time, in terms of printing actual layouts, i gave up on this a while ago - to much effort, what you might want to look at, is producing reports that resemble your layout i they have to.