Go To Record No

[kshelton]

Simple situation. I have let's say 1000 records numbered A1 to A100.

When I am viewing a record, I want a simple way to move to another record, e.g. I am on A25 and wish to go to A103.

What I would like, unless there is something better, is to enter, let's say A50, into a Find Field and press a Button and go to A50.

Thanks

Keith

[Søren Dyhr]

Ditch the simplicity in the explanation, the abstraction leaves way to many ways to interpret the situation at hand ... are you trying to be creative by playing with a handicap - such as deliberately ignore global fields.

1000 records numbered A1 to A100

...does this mean that its a sort of categorisation instead of a serial number?

--sd

[kshelton]

Sorry Soren but you have lost me with your reply.

I am merely trying to go from one record to another specified record as quickly and simply as possible.

Simple as that.

Keith

[IdealData]

Soren meant to tell you that you can use a global field to enter the desired record "number" and then script a find routine using the global as the find criteria.

[Søren Dyhr]

Thanks for explaining ...I'm just puzzled with the skills level declared - was it an aim for subtleties instead of brute force obviousness. There are indeed plausible arguments to ignore globals, and if it here was one of those occasions, would at least I need further explanation.

--sd

[kshelton]

Soren

Regarding skills level, Intermediate seemed reasonable when becoming a forum member as I have experience from FM3 and created a contacts/orders/quotations/info etc. database in FM4 including relationships, for my former business. However, I am now extremely rusty and in any case have never regarded myself as any sort of expert. I am quite happy to downgrade to whatever the lowest level is if this avoids future confusion.

Now back to my question

I do, of course, know how to do a normal find and what a global field is. I just thought that it would be nice if I could 1) merely enter a record number into a 'find' field (without first going into find mode) and 2) press a button to go to the particular record.

I tried to create a script with a calculation in 'go to record no' but it didn't work.

Regret I don't know how to use a global field as suggested by yourself. If you know how to achieve what I want I would appreciate your 'baby feeding' me.

Many thanks for your patience.

[LaRetta]

Not to worry about your rating at all.

I tried to create a script with a calculation in 'go to record no' but it didn't work.

If you just want the ability to jump ahead by, say, 50 records then you can use script of:

Go To Record [ by calculation ] and don't put anything in. Leave unchecked 'Perform without dialog'

Then, when button is clicked, will open and ask for your record number. Does this help? It won't jump to A50 but if you are on record 25 and want to jump to record 50, it will do so. :wink2:

[Lee Smith]

Hi kshelton, and welcome to the Forum.

IMO, you have correctly identified your skill level, and I'm not sure why Soren even brought it up. Maybe he feels that you have more knowledge than a Intermediate skill level should. <>

My question is why the need to jump 25 records, obviously, you have identified something these two records would have in common? Perhaps, a relationship based on the that criteria, a portal, and a GTRR script?

Lee

[kshelton]

Just to say all is now working.

I merely added 'find all records' and 'sorted into correct order' into my script and bingo.

Thanks for comments but would still like to know how a global field would have worked - just in case it's better than what I have done.

Keith

[bcooney]

Put a global field on your layout, with a button "Go" next to it. The "Go" button does a gtrr, using a self-join relationship from global to recordID. This, of course, assumes users have recordIDs in their heads.

Another technique is called Spotlight searching. Google that.

[kshelton]

Only just noticed LaRetta's and Lee's replies. Thanks for those.

My original question was probably so basic that everyone assumed that there was more to it.

Hope this is clear: I wanted a simple procedure without entering normal find mode. For example, if I were viewing a record having my number 40 and wanted to go to my number 155 record, I just wanted to enter 155 and press a button.

Luckily, my record numbers match FM numbers when all records are found and sorted to match.

I have finished up with a script

Find All - Sort - Go To Record No by calc (as entered in my Find field)

This seems to be fine.

Not sure what I would do if my record numbers could not match FM record numbers.

I like to learn and any other comments are appreciated.

Thanks again

Keith

[comment]

You could just type the record number into the box in the status area.

[Søren Dyhr]

This, of course, assumes users have recordIDs in their heads.

This is exactly why I ask if the A'somethings are type, since the population of A1 thru A100 requires some kind of duplication to fit a found set of 1000.

Are we locating the first or say last itemline of each invoice/order? ... and why are we not making the jumping in the parent record ... where the primary key officially needs to be unique.

Is it an order system where the records not are supposed to get deleted? ... there are as you see quite a handfull of pending question, before being able to give more than educated guesses and stabs in the dark.

It might be an irritating way I question your reasoning, but why are you so thrifty with the info?

Barbara hits our despair right on the nail, how convenient is it the users knows of the record ID's ... it's no art to make a flimsy solution where knowledge to inner mechanics are required, but the ideal must be an accomplishment approaching "Vessel of Meaning"

This means that the selection of the record needs to be based on expected content instead of knowing how to locate it ... provisions should be made to let the user select between distinctive saying choises not inner mechanics linking values.

If it's a system with orders would a portal of clients and dates be more obvious choice, unless the clients calls and makes direct references to a serialised value such as invoice number. But unless the customer makes 10-15 orders the same day, would he just as well reference to the day of issuing, although a selection among these 10-15might not be the toughes.

But the global needs to get it's values by human readable selection, which then is terminated by a sort of submitting the choise.

--sd

[kshelton]

Wow Soren, you've left me again at the starting line.

I don't know what other info to give as all I want to do is call up another record in a slick way.

Typing into the Status Area would not work unless all records were called up and sorted correctly beforehand. In any case, I would have to display the Status Area which is another step - I might just as well do a conventional Find.

I will not be deleting any records.

Finally, my script as already described, does work. I key a number into a field and press a button and I have the record I wanted to see. It may not give your sort of quality/elegant solution but it definitely works.

Thanks for your efforts.

Keith

[bcooney]

Keith, you've gotten lots of great responses, but you're missing the point that Soren and I have tried to make. Why have a user know a recordID? Usually they know something else, a name, a date, etc. And if they know the recordID, is it in someway "meaningful?" That would be a red flag that you have some sort of calculated recordID which could lead to duplicate key IDs.

[LaRetta]

I see this as simply a quick way to jump ahead a bit ... and I use it all the time, attached to the record bar, script which opens Go To Record [ by calculation ] dialog. It won't put him exactly on the record he wishes, if his record IDs don't perfectly match the record number (ie, he has deleted some) but he can then click the record indicator to go forward a few if he is off.

It isn't that unusual of a request at all.

[bruceR]

It should be possible to use a custom function to get the list of values for this field, and then find the offset of the intended value in the list, and go that record.

[bcooney]

But he didn't ask to jump, he asked to go to a specific recordID.

[kshelton]

Thanks, LaRetta.

My Trade Sheet number will always match FM's ID when all records are called up and sorted as I will not delete any and the sheets are numbered automatically. I am searching for my Trade Sheet number as per an earlier printout and not FM's ID.

I may be missing something but why would I want to search for dates, names or whatever when every sheet has its own unique number - same as an invoice number?

Even if my sheet number couldn't match FM's ID, I would still want to search for the number as it is the only unique entry!

Anyway, I think you understand what I am doing and I do appreciate everyone's efforts to help.

Thanks to all.

Keith

[bcooney]

OK. This is my last post to this thread. As Soren said earlier, you never gave us the big picture, and we have active imaginations. LaRetta had you jumping around records, Soren and I wondered if your recordIDs were some odd calculation that made them meaningful--that would explain why you knew the ID of the record you wished to find.

Now you finally mention that you're looking at a printout of a Trade Sheet that has the record ID on it. That would have been useful to know.

[LaRetta]

Thanks, Keith. If I want to quickly find Invoice 400 and I'm on Invoice 3, I may not want to scroll through them all. I may not want to perform a find and lose my found set. I may not even want to GTRR because I may only do this occasionally and I don't want to create ANOTHER silly table occurrence for this occasional search. NONE of us knows exactly the context in which the User will be performing this action.

My point was that, jumping forward instead of scrolling can save quite a bit of time and still put someone close to where they need to be (with no fuss); same as Michael's suggestion of changing the record number in status area. Searching for a number is NOT strange at all. One can be viewing a document while scrolling through many records and want to quickly jump forward.

We all were seeing different things here. I was not saying anyone was wrong - I was saying I saw a slightly different path for similar result; that's all. :wink2:

[kshelton]

LaRetta

You have it spot on. I just wanted to move rapidly from A to B.

I also think that everyone who has tried to help is not wrong but perhaps saw complications in what I was trying to do. This was probably due to a lack of something in my original post - I will have to try harder next time. Having said that I still would not mention a printout as it cannot be relevant whether target No is written down or in my head etc. Where do you draw the line on info given?

Anyway my script is working great and I cannot see why that should not continue.

Thanks again to you and everyone else.

Keith

[bcooney]

Breaking my vow, "Having said that I still would not mention a printout as it cannot be relevant whether target No is written down or in my head etc. Where do you draw the line on info given?"

Because we thought you were up to some weird record ID scheme! We couldn't imagine that you knew the record ID off the top of your head.

Please understand, we answer so many posts about convoluted schemes for recordIDs that (speaking for myself) brought that baggage to your post.

[LaRetta]

I agree with, Barbara. And normally I would have brought it up as well but since they did, I didn't see the need to cover same territory so I went a different direction to cover alternate possibilities. Everyone who responds here is trying to help. We see things differently, say things differently and disagree at times as well. It is all good.

And don't worry about not always saying everything perfectly; notice that we can't and we've been at it for a long time! So relax and have fun ... we'll work through it regardless as long as you're willing to hang in there. There truly is no better group of people ... :wink2:

[bruceR]

But he didn't ask to jump, he asked to go to a specific recordID.

Please re-read the suggestion; it solves the problem.

And in general, if you think a solution I have provided doesn't work, take a second look at it.

If value A123 is at position 13 in the list, then you go to record 13.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Guest

[kshelton]

LaRetta's attitude to the Forum is absolutely great. Supporting this, I firmly believe that the ability to try and understand another person's point of view, be able to laugh at yourself whilst ALWAYS holding to what you believe, all contribute to a relaxed and peaceful mind.

Whoever created and maintains this Forum should be really proud knowing that so many knowledgeable people give their time freely to solving some stranger's problem.

Can we now close this thread as I already feel really bad about the amount of effort everyone has put into my 'simple' problem - I will definitely try harder next time.

Thanks again

Keith

[Søren Dyhr]

I will definitely try harder next time.

Excellent! - but remember "The bigger picture" ... there's not one size fits all!

I went a different direction to cover alternate possibilities

...however does it make me think of how different a cat and a dog strategically approach to get through a hole in a hedge or fence. Trial and err for the dog's behalf vs. reasoning where the head might shoot through based on a proper inspection before trying!

I already feel really bad about the amount of effort everyone

...you mean how uncanny it is get fried in your own stew?

--sd

[LaRetta]

Trial and err for the dog's behalf vs. reasoning where the head might shoot through based on a proper inspection before trying!

Are you calling me a dog?

Ya know, I'm usually jumped on for being so fussy and questioning people all too much! And now I'm a dog! I didn't see Keith getting fried in his own stew ... I saw him being overcooked when he might have only wanted a sandwich! It isn't our job to convert the world - only to point out issues as we see them (once or twice) and then let 'em go!!

Woof! < - - - - translated means "let the thread sleep now in happy overcookedness."