Defining Fields - Copy/Paste vs. Duplicate - Calculation Engine (Define Fields)

November 17, 200817 yr

I discovered an interesting new "feature" of v9 (at least new to me).

I have a series of fields that are used to track a process - step 1, step 2, etc. Each step has a whole collection of fields - start date, due date, revised, etc. etc., many of which are calculations based on one another.

I need to add more steps to this process. In the past I've used "Duplicate" in the Manage Database interface to do a "copy" of each field - then go back, rename and update the calculations. This was OK, but each calculation had to be manually updated to be the new step number within the calc.

What I found today was if I select the fields and do the Copy and Paste function instead of Duplicate - the calculations do not have to be adjusted because they are already related to themselves with the new names. Does that make sense to anyone else?

Not a very exciting find - but saves a bit of time when having to create many new fields based on fields/calculations that exist already.

November 18, 200817 yr

However, it is most likely the wrong solution to the problem. In almost all cases where you have fields like Phone1, Phone2, Phone3 ... Phone17 you would be better to use a properly normalized design where the data is in separate child records. Seems very likely that is the case here.

November 18, 200817 yr

Not necessarily, Bruce; at least not when it comes to calculations. I have several calculations and summaries of those calculations. I can copy/paste and more simply change portions of them (while still maintaining the new reference). I know exactly what eswanborg is saying and it DOES come in handy at times.

Hey eswanborg, thanks for mentioning it. I had noticed it before but many people may not have! In fact, if you copy a field and the calculations it references, ALL will change to reference the new fields properly! :wink2:

LaRetta

November 18, 200817 yr

Author

I didn't state it very well - but yes, what I was noticing for the first time was that the references within the definition update correctly with the field names when doing a Copy/Paste. Where a Duplicate leaves all the references set to the original field names.

It's a pretty minor find, but was new to me and very helpful to the file I have. I'm confident there are better ways to work in many cases - but for a self-taught developer I'm pretty pleased with the way things are working for me.

Thanks

eric