Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Dropping Back from V9

Recommended Posts

I desperately need the Script grouping facility and would upgrade just to get it BUT I need my app to run under V8.5. I would not use any other new feature, tempting as it might be. I have tried moving a small DB with grouped scripts from V9 to V8.5 and it seemed to be OK but I need to be absolutely certain - well, 99% anyway.

Does anyone KNOW if it is possible to drop back like that?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,

I will be recommending to one business (using a solution I built) to purchase one copy of 9 Advanced so I (or any Developer) can more easily group and work in Script Maker while using Advanced (this is full-agency solution with 300+ scripts). But, because of the particular requirements of this business, I won't recommend upgrading all copies to 9 at this time.

As long as you don't incorporate other 9 enhancements (conditional formatting, for instance) then you will be fine. As indicated, when opening in versions less than 9, the scripts loose their grouping but all appears to work flawlessly otherwise. :wink2:


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

At least the groups remain together, and the folders become a line that separate the groups.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember also that some relationship behavior has changed as well. See Item 11.11 of the Read Me for FMP 9.


Edited by Guest

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that bit of info, Steven. Fortunately, in this case, ignorance is bliss; I didn't know about that behaviour and wouldn't have used it.

Thanks to everyone else, too. You've confirmed what I thought but I'm sore from many, many bites on the bum so, in the absence of reliable advice, I generally keep to the straight and narrow - where computers are concerned, anyway.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

11.11. In the previous versions of FileMaker, some predicates in a relationship would be ignored if they had

an empty value. This could result in finding records which don’t match the relationship criteria,

even finding all records in the related table. Predicates based on empty values will no longer match

to any other records. Any databases which depended on the old behavior will need to be modified to

use a different relational design. This change was made to match standard relational behavior in

SQL databases.

I'm trying to understand this -- does this mean that in FM8.5 that an empty match field would match all other records in the other table that were also blank? If so, I don't remember seeing this happen. And that in FM9 any relationship that has a blank in a match field on either side will no longer match? Or is this saying that in FM8.5 there was a bug that is now fixed, and the behavior in FM9 is what you would expect...?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just got bitten by this change in behaviour.

A multi-predicate relationship thus to create a dwindling value list:

recid = recid

listrecid <> recid

where listrecid is a calc field that lists all currently selected recids. Under 8.5 and earlier, if listrecid is empty, all records matching the recid are shown. Under 9.0 none are shown, which breaks the system.

FMI are aware of the problems the change of behaviour has caused and are considering their options.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: The fix wasn't so bad. Don't let listrecid be empty, instead display something (anything) that won't match any real record ids -- a simple "x" was sufficient. FMP 9 seems happy with this.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

When Steven mentioned this 'feature', I thought he was describing odd behaviour. Now I see that it is very useful and quite logical and, more worrying, you virtually can't help using it, even if only by accident.

It won't stop me using V9 to group scripts. At least I won't be wasting time trying to find why some relationships suddenly stop working!

Edited by Guest

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Justin Close
      I was doing a bit of work for a client who is running FM9 clients, connecting to a file hosted on an FM11 server.  I don't have FM9, so was doing development on FM11.  I thought I had checked out that everything was compatible, but I somehow generated a calculation that doesn't evaluate on 9, but does on 11.  The components of the calculations and custom functions used all appear to be innocuous...  I  am hoping someone here knows what I tripped up on.
      Here's the field calculation, and the 2 custom function definitions that it uses.  The entire point of this calculation is to take a mish-mash text field that they have and make it sort nicely.  For this bit I added, I'm just concerning myself with sorting some suffix numbers that occur between parentheses, e.g. 12345(A-1).
      Field calculation definition: Let ( [ _fileNum = Files::File Number ; //Position of 1st open/close parens, and then extract the text between them: _sParen = Position ( _fileNum ; "(" ; 1 ; 1 ) + 1; _eParen = Position ( _fileNum ; ")" ; 1 ; 1 ) ; _suffix = Middle ( _fileNum ; _sParen ; _eParen - _sParen) ; //Count the leading digits before any non-digit character, e.g. an alpha, or dash or space, etc. _count = CountPrefixDigits ( _suffix ; 0 ) ; //Remove extraneous characters (dash, space): _suffix = Substitute ( _suffix; ["-";""]; [" " ; ""] ) ; //Pad out the string to min 5 characters (helps 75-A sort next to 75): _suffix = _suffix & Left ( "!!!!!" ; 5 - Length (_suffix) ); //Reverse the character sequence (so the Code() call works out better): _suffix = ReverseString ( _suffix ) ]; _count & Code ( _suffix ) //prepend the digit count, but don't encode that count, just the rest of it ) -------------------- 'CountPrefixDigits ( aString ; aCounter )' custom function: If ( IsEmpty ( GetAsNumber ( Left ( aString ; 1 ) ) ) ; aCounter ; CountPrefixDigits ( Right ( aString ; Length ( aString) - 1 ) ; aCounter + 1 ) ) -------------------- 'ReverseString (aString)' custom function: If ( Length ( aString ) > 0 ; ReverseString ( Right ( aString ; Length ( aString ) - 1 ) ) & Left ( aString ; 1 ) ; Left ( aString ; 1 ) )  
    • By Tumma K
      Hello, All!

      I am an aspiring developer for Filemaker. The company I work with is stuck in the past working off of Filemaker Pro 4.1

      I was given the task of bringing us up to Filemaker Pro/Server 13. So far my conversion prototypes are successful but we recently had a layout issue that can only be fixed in versions 3-6 (as the file is an .fp3) I work off of a macbook while our network is all Windows 7. In order for me to repair the layouts without tampering our active database, I decided the best option is to repair a copy of our solutions off the network. Unfortunately, when I go to download the trial version of Filemaker Pro 6 off of the respected website, the file is corrupt! I've tried multiple times, with different extraction apps and in different directories.

      My question is;

      Does anyone know a place where I could obtain version 6 (or better yet, 4.0) for an OSX computer? I've looked everywhere!
      Thank you for your time,
      Tumma K.
    • By MacSig
      Hello everyone.
      How can I set the calculated value of field C to the number of records having field A equal to the value inserted to field A and field B equal to the value inserted to field B?
      For instance with the following situation
      record 1  =>  A = "house", B = "pay" 
      record 2  =>  A = "house", B = "win" 
      record 3  =>  A = "car", B = "pay" 
      record 4  =>  A = "house", B = "pay" 
      when I create a new record having  A = "house", B = "pay"  C should automatically be 2 (since record 1 and 4 have the same A, B.
    • By MrEddByrnes
      I'm hoping my question can have a happy ending. In the mid-90's, I purchased Filemaker 3. When Filemaker 5.5 Pro was released, I bought the update CD, which requires the user to either have FM 3 installed or to have the installation CD for FM 3. I've used it all these years, most recently with Windows XP Pro, and it has worked just fine. The databases I began with were long ago converted to FM Pro 5.5 databases.
      I'm still using FM Pro 5.5 on a laptop with WinXP Pro, but in 2013, I purchased a PC with Windows 8. I haven't been able to install FM 3 on it, therefore can't install FM Pro 5.5. I am retired and rarely use Filemaker, but I have a few Filemaker databases I'd like to add to my Win 8 machine. I don't feel it's worth upgrading FM for the sake of using a couple of databases.
      Has anyone else run into this situation and/or have a (possible) solution? Is there perhaps any other software that can read FM 5.5 databases? Thanks in advance for your help.
    • By bmill
      I am using a custom filemaker solution for medical office billing written with fp5 running on a mac with snow leopard. In addition, I have a patient management db (which I wrote) that is linked through pt. ID number to the billing program allowing transfer of some demographic information (name, DOB, etc).
      Other than being limited by hardware restrictions, the billing program serves our needs for now and upgrading to fp12 will take some time (and money).  In the meantime, I am upgrading my pt. management program to fp13 and would like to move new patient demographic information from the billing program ( fp5 running on snow leopard through Parallels) and the new pt management program ( fp13 running on OS X 10.9) on the same mac.   
      Ideally, demographic information would be entered once into fp5 and then a scipt would make the data available for fp13.
      Any ideas on how to make this work?
  • Create New...

Important Information

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