Defining Fields - Copy/Paste vs. Duplicate

[eswanborg]

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.

[bruceR]

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.

[LaRetta]

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!

LaRetta

[eswanborg]

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