Jump to content

Using calc for 'tunneling'


GrantSymon
 Share

This topic is 5761 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I don't know if this is the correct thing to do or not. It appears to work, but I'm wondering if it is a fragile technique or not.

In one of my files I want to access data from table (Forms_Submissions), whilst in another table (Submissions_Release). The data is 2 tables away.

I've made a calc field in the 'middle' table (Releases) which is simply = the field I want to access in the 1st table (Forms_Submissions). I then made a third relationship table and put the calc field from the second table, directly onto the layout.

The data shows up as desired, but it seems an odd workaround. Is it a good way to do this?

FM_question.jpg

Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Grant,

We can't really tell you unless we know your structure in the first place (the image is kind of bad quality and can't be read). The technique itself sounds fine to some extent if it works but I don't see why (and i'm sure theres a good reason) you couldn't just add another table occurance and another relationship directly to the main table -- again, this is more likely not possible than it is... possible.

Just get back to us on structure so we can advise you.. i.e. specific purpose of those three tables, and specific criteria by which they are related.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I jump on Alex' bandwaggon as well, tunneling via calc'fields ought to be a bygone!!!!

http://www.newcenturydata.com/downloads/gtrr_multi_hop.zip

Since I consider you pretty accomplished in dealings with filemaker must there be something I ignore - please enlighten me!

--sd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soren, Genx,

thanks for the replies.

I rather thought that this was an 'iffy' technique. I don't do much FM these days, so I'm not really up on how this should be done. Also ... I thought the screen-grab would have been useful. Ho hum. :)

I have several tables in this file, but there are 3 in particular which are involved here.

1/ Forms, which feeds PDFs in container fields to both Submissions and Releases.

2/ Submissions, which displays the pdfs from Forms and info from Releases

3/ Releases, which I want to display pdfs as displayed in Submissions *and* others fed from Forms.

My problem is, that in Releases, I can display the pdfs fed directly from Forms but the pdfs fed from Forms and then *via* Submissions don't show up. (So ... I found that making a calc in Submissions and then displaying that in Releases, works.)

I need forms to be fed via Submissions so that they relate to the appropriate records.

Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so I'm not really up on how this should be done.

Comment and I have known you from way back in Compuserve, so we thought you knew that the RG not is an ERD, so what's next is some Anchor Bouy'ing or similar to your graph and perhaps a read of this:

http://www.digfm.org/ref/FM7_key_concepts.pdf

But indeed thumps up to your website!!!!!

--sd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Soren,

yes I remember you well from the CIS days. Wasn't that just a great forum. I loved it, but spent waaaayyyy to much time on it, with the happy result that my FM skills weren't too bad in those days for a fumbling amateur. Today though, with so much changed in FM, I'm a little lost ... hence the lingering use of old techniques. :) (I don't remember anyone called 'comment' though! :D )

I shall try and read through the pdf. Thanks for the link.

However, I have *no idea* what "RG" and "ERD" are???

Thanks for the kind words about my *real* work. :) :)

Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Entity relationship diagram, is essentially a diagram of the way processes relate to each other in the real world, what information needs to be stored and so on. The relationships graph... is the way you attempt to "fit" your database to that structure..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding your original question -- using a calc field in the 2nd table, to get a value in the 3rd table, may in some cases work differently than referencing the field in the third table directly. I'm thinking in particular of Nulls / missing values. For example, doing a find for a blank value using the calc in table 2 may not give the same result as doing a find for blank value in table 3.

If you use this technique, make sure you are paying attention to the "...even if all values are missing..." calc options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is 5761 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.