True boolean at layout level

[LaRetta]

I thought I was clever but obviously not. I had a timestamp field which is set by script when an email is successfully sent. I wanted to display a simple "Yes" in the portal ( with header called Sent OK? ) but I didn't want a new field. So I placed this timestamp field on the layout and formatted the NUMBER as boolean "yes" if a number and blank if not. It SAYS that number is one of the options on timestamp!

It doesn't work and I think that is a great shame! If we could take advantage of the boolean logic for timestamps, times and dates then it would be a great help particularly if FileMaker expanded the number of characters we could enter.

LaRetta

[comment]

You can.

BooleanTimestamp.fp7.zip

[Raybaudi]

Yes, it's possible even with no visible date and time formatted with notation 24 hours:

"Yes " ( yes + 6 spaces ) before.

[LaRetta]

Oh that is terribly clever!! So one must set the timestamp as custom 24-hour but nothing trailing and then date as custom YES and nothing else! I'm surprised that the colon in the time doesn't still appear but it doesn't! And this will work with date alone also!

:yourock:

[comment]

the colon in the time doesn't still appear

It does - actually, the entire time appears after the "date". Stretch the field out to the right to see it. That's why it's a good idea to add some spaces after "Yes" - I believe you can add as many as 4, for a total of 7 characters.

It does work the same way for date fields - but unfortunately not for time fields.

Edited June 10, 2008 by Guest

[Raybaudi]

That's why it's a good idea to add some spaces after "Yes" - I believe you can add as many as 4, for a total of 7 characters.

On Window the max characters are 8 for the date, but 9 for the time.

It does work the same way for date fields - but unfortunately not for time fields.

For time fields you can use what I said.

[mr_vodka]

Speaking of checkboxes...

I really wish that there was a FileMaker way of rendering fields as a boolean checkbox using FileMaker's checkbox. This can obviously be done with Webdings, etc but why cant we have the option of displaying a checkbox with a boolean value instead of having to use a value list of 1. It would be great to display things such as existing related records by putting their related pk fields on the parent layout and then render them as checkboxes...

Ok enough ranting... I just thought that although using the alternative webding way fulfills a method to do it, it would be nice to have checkboxes that are the same across the board...

[Raybaudi]

It would be great to display things such as existing related records by putting their related pk fields on the parent layout and then render them as checkboxes...

Maybe I didn't understand, but you can do it using a value list from a calculated field with the List ( ) function + another TO of the related table

[comment]

I still don't understand what you said. I cannot insert more than 7 characters BEFORE the date. I CAN insert up to 9 characters before the TIME. I don't think there would be a platform difference here, so the question is where exactly are you entering the spaces.

It's possible to push the time even more to the right by entering more spaces as separators - that would give up to 44 (5*7 + 9) characters before the time.

BooleanTimestamp.fp7.zip

[Raybaudi]

I can enter ( and see ) 8 chars in Window. ( that would give up to [color:green]50 (5*8 + "space" + 9) characters before the time.)

Your second way can be usefull also to center the "YES" with some spaces before and some after.

BooleanTimestamp8chars.zip

[comment]

I can enter ( and see ) 8 chars in Window.

That is weird. I can see the 8 characters, but I cannot edit them without reducing the total to 7. Why do they do this? And why don't they at least document this? Eh...

[mr_vodka]

Hi Daniele.

No, I mean lets say that you want to represent a related record with a checkbox. I usually use a checkbox with a value of 1. It would be nice to put the related pk on the parent layout and then have an option to render it as a boolean checkbox without having to create any kind of calc field or using Webdings etc.

[comment]

I am not sure I get this myself, John. Do you mean you want an indication whether the parent has any child records? If so, why not just use some conditionally formatted text?

[mr_vodka]

I am not saying that it cant be done using some other method... I was just referring to the fact that it would be nice to be able to display a field as a checkbox with the option of "boolean". It would just make things easier than trying to "fake" a checkbox for display.

I dunno maybe I am just in a complaining mood today... :

[comment]

So that would be like having a built-in value list of 1? How long does it take to create one? I think much more time is wasted in trying to make the checkbox look like a checkbox (i.e. not like a Filemaker checkbox).

[mr_vodka]

So that would be like having a built-in value list of 1?

No not really. Because if you are using it for primary keys, the numbers can be 1, 54, 2234234, etc... I am just saying that if there was an option to render a field to display as a FileMaker checkbox, it would be nice instead of having to use some kind of conditional formatting or webding to display a "fake" one.

Edited June 10, 2008 by Guest

[comment]

OK, I see (I think). So it would be like having GetAsBoolean as a formatting option. I don't know, seems a bit esoteric to me. I mean, how often do you need this? If your relationship is not allowing creation, you could just set up a one-row portal and put anything into it. Or, as I said, you could conditionally format some text. Why use the field itself?

[fabriceN]

Before today, my life was so simple. But reading this thread made me browse the entire Unicode table, looking for nice symbols to use in the boolean formatting options. Thanks Comment for ruining my sleep time again ! :

The problem now is that I can't paste those symbols in the 'Show zeros as' (it just doesn't work). Only the 'Show non zeros as' is working (number fields).

Any -other- brilliant idea ?

Edited June 11, 2008 by Guest

[LaRetta]

Any -other- brilliant idea ?

Wow, that sure seemed to drip with snide. I sure hope I'm wrong.

Hi Michael,

I see John's point ... it would be useful to be able to select any field actually, example: your timestamp checkbox in your demo. You saw the desire to display it that way. And instead of having to create the checkbox, simply specify as 'boolean check'. If the field is not empty or if the field is boolean true, it would produce a checkbox with a check in it; if empty or not true, the checkbox would be empty. I realize not empty isn't true boolean but maybe there could be a radio button to select whether 'true boolean' or empty/not empty. Then we could use many fields, similar to my request here, to display whether it is true or not but inside a checkbox without having to dink around creating it separately. I think I would use it quite a bit. It would be snap, boom, done!

Edited June 11, 2008 by Guest
Changed some wording

[comment]

There are some font/symbol combinations that Filemaker won't accept - probably due to a rather basic implementation of Unicode. However, I haven't seen any difference between the 'Show zeros as' and 'Show non zeros as' boxes. Can you give some specific examples?

[comment]

I see the point too, but it's not one of the standard ways of displaying information. Not that I see anything wrong with it, but I know of no application that uses it. Filemaker being a sparse collection of very basic tools, I wouldn't expect them to produce something like that. And frankly, I would prefer if they concentrated on reworking the entire layout engine from the ground up.

[fabriceN]

Wow, that sure seemed to drip with snide. I sure hope I'm wrong.

Wow, sorry ! Of course it was not meant.

And sorry again because... I can't reproduce the problem. Works perfectly now.

[mr_vodka]

Yeah I agree that the layout engine needs to be overhauled. I was just being "wishful" since it was in wants and wishes... lol.

There are so many places where I could find this kind of feature very useful.

[comment]

Works perfectly now.

See? I knew that would solve it.

Of course it was not meant.

I didn't think it was.

[LaRetta]

Hey, Fabrice, glad to know.

Sometimes people on here have thought I was being rude or Soren or Michael or that others were. And they didn't mention it but complained to others or just felt ill-will. Better to ask than let someone (or even me) assume wrongly. I might be just a bit sensitive today as well ... maybe the heat. I apologize if I came across snippy. :crazy2:

[mr_vodka]

Also, I dont like the face that I need to create two objects. The first being an empty box and the other the check. I tried using a whole bunch of different fonts to mimic the exact 'X' checkmark but it doesnt look good. I tend to go with an actual wingding checkmark.

Second, if using these faked checkmarks on portal, depending on the height size of the portal row, the fake checkmarks looks small.

That it the orig reason I started to wish for a boolean checkmark feature.

[comment]

The problem I see here is that a checkbox is supposed to be interactive. What you want is an indicator - and Filemaker already provides this by allowing you to format a number as Boolean. Granted, it takes a bit of work to get it right, but what doesn't? And once you have it, you can copy/paste it to other solutions.

Speaking of tedious work - how about double-clicking a field in Layout mode and getting access to field behavior and borders, in addition to field setup?

[David Jondreau]

Speaking of tedious work - how about double-clicking a field in Layout mode and getting access to field behavior and borders, in addition to field setup?

Nice one. You submit that as a feature request.

As much as I try not to be, I'm a mouser. Filemaker is a tough app to rely just on keyboard controls. And with three different keyboard set ups, it really breaks the workflow.

[LaRetta]

Hey Daniele, I got so involved in playing with the results that you and Michael provided that I neglected to acknowledge your ideas! I just saw this thread again. Thank you!! :wink2:

Edited June 26, 2008 by Guest

[Raybaudi]

Thank you, LaRetta ...

but we have to give credits principally to comment ( as always ) :