2 portal problem

[Tyler K]

I'm new around here, and starting to learn FP7. I work for a small production company and have been put in charge up making some updates our system. So, here's what I'm trying to do.

We're making a "Bid Estimate" portal and "Time Log" portal. In the bid estimate the employee will enter the different work the client will be billed for along with an estimated amount of time that will be billed at a variable rate. For instance:

Bid Estimate:

[Post Production] 3 hour(s) 150$ per hour

[Production] 5 hour(s) 75$ per hour

[DVD Authoring] 2 hour(s) 25$ per hour

The time log portal will give the employee a field where they can pick the work they are entering time for and it will be multiplied by the correct rate. For instance:

Time Log:

[Post Production] 4 hour(s)

[Production] 21 hour(s)

[DVD Authoring] 1 hour(s)

The problem I'm having is getting the rate to follow the work. I hope that's clear so far. I'm having trouble learning how to make this work, so if anyone can give me any advice at all that'd be great. Thanks in advance.

[Søren Dyhr]

This is apparently something that happens inside peoples heads, or is it a common way to build a layout? I've been debating this intensively in another forum in my own language for some time now.

Unless there are some privileges are standing in the way isn't a one2one relation, in my humble opinion - really justified.

In short should it be part of the same table, what you wish to show in the repective portals is more a layout matter, are you planning scrollbars for the portals?

Well there might more to it, do you have several records for the timelog, so you need some kind of portalized summary.

--sd

[comment]

You need a relationship between the TimeLog table and another occurence of the Estimates table. The relationship should be defined as:

TimeLog::ProjectID = Estimates 2::ProjectID

AND

TimeLog::WorkType = Estimates 2::WorkType

Then you can lookup the rate from Estimates 2 into the rate field in TimeLog.

[Tyler K]

Hmm... did I mention I'm a beginner? I'm trying to find a way to apply the above mentioned methods (either one) This is pretty tough stuff at first.

[comment]

Hard to explain in your terms - because we don't know your terms. You mentioned two portals, so you must have (at least) three tables. I am assuming the "main" table is called Projects, and it has a ProjectID field to link it to the other two tables.

What you need is a direct link between the two child tables.

[Tyler K]

I'm with ya now

So... as of now I'm looking at:

Project - Estimate - TimeLog

Connected like that, rather than both Estimate and TimeLog connecting to Project...?

Edited January 25, 2007 by Guest

[comment]

Uhmmm.. no. You should keep what you have, and ADD a new relationship. Since Filemaker will not allow you to define a "circular" relationship, you will have to place a new occurence of the Estimate table on the graph, and link it to Timelog as specified above.

[Tyler K]

Okay, so I'm not following you so well. Right now I'm having trouble adding rows to my Portals... I can make it work, but then when I set it up with the extra occurance for some reason I can't make it work. /sigh

[comment]

You shouldn't make changes - only additions.

See if the attached makes it any clearer.

Estimates.fp7.zip

Estimates.fp7.zip

[Tyler K]

Thanks for the example, it was very helpful. However, the rate in TimeLog is showing as blank. I've been tinkering for a few minutes, so I'll keep at it, but do you have any suggestions?

I'd post up what I'm working on, but it's full of "confidential" client info... I know that would be helpful though.

I also wanted to note some differences between our builds. I don't have a PojectID, and I refer to type as functionDescription. So, I don't have ProjectId linked between everything, I have functionDescription in Timelog linked with functiondescription in Estimate2. Also, I have pulledRate in Timelog to lookup from rate in Estimate2. That's all that comes to mind at the moment.

Edited January 26, 2007 by Guest

[Tyler K]

It works! Thanks for all the help! I started running into a little problem with storage I think, but it's good now. Thanks again!

[aldipalo]

If you do a "Save As" you can save the file as a clone with "No Records." Then you can zip that file and post it. Then just fill in a few bogus records. At least all can see the file and try to help you.

Just a suggestion.

[Tyler K]

Ah, thanks for that info. I've got the problem solved now, but if I run into any more trouble I'll use that method. Thanks again.

[Tyler K]

Alright, so I have another issue with my project. I'm not 100% sure on how to explain it because it came from a template and I'm adding what I've created to it. The problem is that when it looks up the value from the rate in the Estimate table, and you start working with a new record, it still draws from that first value. So if I have one Estimate with a rate of 100$ per hour, and the next estimate is 105$ an hour, it does a lookup and finds 100$ so that's what goes in the pulledRate field... rather than 105$. Get what I'm saying?

[LaRetta]

It sounds like it's pulling the first related record (with the $100 value) instead of a second or third record (rate of $105). We simply can't work blind having no idea what your relationships look like. You've been given description of attaching empty clone. I suggest you do it. Because otherwise, we're throwing darts at a dart board with no markings.

If you are NOT using unique IDs as suggested, you are blowing it all over the place.

LaRetta

[comment]

I don't have a PojectID, and ... I have functionDescription in Timelog linked with functiondescription in Estimate2

The problem is that when it looks up the value from the rate in the Estimate table, and you start working with a new record, it still draws from that first value.

Cause and consequence, I think.

[Tyler K]

I'll have to work on gettin a clone put up later... I tried to earlier, but it said my file became corrupt, couldn't be saved... yadda yadda. I'll get one put up though. Comment, I made some changes to the naming. My lookup to the Estimate table refered to above should have said Estimate 2. It's on hold for the weekend at this point, but thanks for the help. Bare with me, I'm still rather new to this... having only been working in FP7 for about a week.

[comment]

You can change the names all you want (within reason and Filemaker's naming restrictions). But the relationship between Timelog and Estimate2 needs to match on BOTH the project AND the type of work. So a record in Timelog can tell Estimate 2: fetch me the correct rate for THIS type of work on THIS project.

If the project is not identified, the relationship fetches the first rate that matches the type of work - which is the rate from the first project. This is exactly what you have described - I don't think we need to see your file to understand what happened here.

For this to work, each record in the Projects table must have a unique identifier, and each record in the other two tables must "know" which project it belongs to. That's why in my demo you can see that there is a ProjectID field in all three tables.

[Tyler K]

So I tried making a clone, made it, and it was all crazy when I tried to go through it myself. If I get a chance later today I'll try to get somethin for you all to look at.

[Tyler K]

Okay, I'll try to explain this the best I'm able. I'm still a beginner, but understanding a lot of the concepts and methods now. I know what I need to do, but am not able to do it because of the design of the template our company decided to use. Obviously, the original creators of the template are far more advanced than myself, so I am having to pretty much follow their rules. I'll post a clone, but good luck navigating your way around. I'll try to direct as best as possible, but in the clone particular buttons are not showing up.

What you'll want to do is create a new project, and go into the Details tab. From there, you'll want to enter the Project Costs tab. That's where I'm doing all my work. My estimate portal = A_BudgetOurs, estimate2 = A_BudgetOurs2. TimeLog = B_BudgetOthers. Those two connect to Project with zkc.projectCost.p-zkc.project.A.f and zck.projectCost.p-zkc.project.B.f. That's the original devs, not me. If you connect anything else from those to project the portals stop working. Something scripted somewhere I'm thinking. So, I'm having trouble setting up a projectID as I cannot go from A_BudgetOurs-Project-B_BudgetOthers-A_BudgetOurs2. There IS a projectId number alread being generated though. So I've been trying to think of a way to use that. It is in Project and is named pda.projectNumber. There is something more advanced than myself at work in there... so it's creating a brick wall for me. Anyways, if anyone can help that would be great... Otherwise, I'm just gonna keep plugging along trying to find a solution. Thanks in advance... good luck with the clone I'm providing.

Not sure if I already mentioned this, but some of the buttons in the clone aren't showing up at all... you can still click where they are, but they don't display... uh... weird right?

ProjectClone.fp7.zip

Edited January 29, 2007 by Guest

[Tyler K]

Still no luck. Any more thoughts?

Another thought of mine... in trying establish a unique projectId. It already has a projectID being generated upon the creation of the project as a whole. Since this is just a part of the project... is there a way to relate the elements to the projects master ID? I've tried the methods I'm aware of, but then I'm not able to add rows to my portals, something within the scripting as I mentioned before... I can't make many changes to the structure at all... bleh.

Edited January 30, 2007 by Guest

[Søren Dyhr]

I've taken a short look at you template, and especially the graphing, which unfortunatly is a myriad of interconnections to a lot of fields which carries somewhat identical names just distinguisable by a number.

The first suggest that this is your first project with the new RG, we've all done so - realizing some sort of principle for getting order in the mess must be applied.

Please study this: http://www.filemaker.com/downloads/pdf/FMDev_ConvNov05.pdf

Then is the use of almost identcial names suggesting that you break a lot this stuff out into new tables, and the tablenames you already have chosen is misleading you away from a efficient table structure.

I know that I have pulled this example quite a few times, but a developer needs to think of alternative ways to slice and dice data according to task at hand.

http://previews.filemakermagazine.com/videos/513/DataTagging_full.mov

--sd

[Tyler K]

Just wanted to mention that all those table names were part of the template, and if I change them then it messes up the scripting and the buttons to add new rows to portals stop working. I was going to simplify a lot of it, but it seems that there is some order to its madness, on some level...

[Søren Dyhr]

But lets agree on, you have to embark on this endeavour yourself ...no-one else can make any sense of you use of graphs and fields.

You might even ditch this first project - since whenever you change a tiny detail, another artifact pops up shortly. You must come up with stronger principles than the eagerness to produce something. Planning ahead seems to be forgotten?

--sd

[Tyler K]

There was quite a bit of planning... and quite a bit of "learn as you go". The problems come into play with trying to integrate into the original design. The only change I made to the entire graph was adding A_BudgetOurs 2. As far as ditching the project, well... we've been using this particular file for a long time, and now we're just wanting to add to it. Whoever originally built it probably didn't have that in mind though.

[Søren Dyhr]

Try to read page 26 in this:

http://www.foundationdbs.com/Downloads/WhitePaperForFMPNovices.pdf

The problem is you need to know all the rules, to know when to break them ...The foundation you're adding niftyness to is pretty shaky - to be honest.

--sd

[Tyler K]

"The foundation you're adding niftyness to is pretty shaky - to be honest."

I would agree with you on that, 100%

Edit:

Well, we decided to step back from this project... we're going to reconsider some options, look at what we have to work with and decide if we're going to salvage or build anew. Thanks for the help guys.

Edited January 30, 2007 by Guest

[comment]

It is very tempting to take a template and adapt it to your needs. But when anything more than a minor tweak is required, it may be more trouble than it's worth. It took me only a few minutes to create the demo I have posted earlier. It would probably take me an entire day to incorporate the same functionality into your solution, because I would have to understand how it works first.

[Tyler K]

Yeah, I put in 2 and a half full days messing with something that should only take a few moments. What we ended up using took me 10 minutes to set up... it doesn't do 100% of what we wanted, but rather 50-75%... Oh well, we'll see where it goes.