This seems like the most simple thing in the world to do, but for some reason I cannot take the sum of two summary fields and get them together into a total!

I have created a report to document the number of phone calls in a specific location for my users. In my report I have two sub-summarys from my master layout; staff member and location. I've created two summary fields to tally the total specific types of calls that were made for each user in each location for a specific date range. Now I want to create two additional summary fields; One that simply adds the number of calls for each user and one that calculates the total amount of calls in a report.

I've tried creating a calculation that sums the two summary fields but this only results in the total calls for the report being returned no matter where I put the calc field. As far as I know you can't have a summary field that summarizes two other summary fields so I am at a loss as to how to accomplish this...

Edited March 2, 201015 yr by Guest

In order to refer to a sub-summary value in a calculation, you need to use the GetSummary() function.

Ok, I tried a calc field with the GetSummary() command and it is still returning the total number of phone calls in my report and not the total number of phone calls for one person...I think I'm doing it wrong.

I have my phone calls broken into types. A calc field then runs a patterncount() to get the totals for each type of phone call for each staff member. I then have a summary field on my report that totals each type of phone call for each staff member.

I'm trying to get a) the total phone calls for one staff member and, : the total phone calls made for all staff members.

What am I doing wrong?

I don't get this part:

Ok, A calc field then runs a patterncount() to get the totals for each type of phone call for each staff member.

Can you provide a sample of the phone call data?

Basically I've created a table called "Interaction" and then through a script I assigned it a type and a creation user. A common ID field (In relation to the report I'm running the Interaction is the parent table) ties the Interaction to it's child table (I'll call it Ralph). In my report I am trying to total how many interactions of each type every user has created for each "Ralph" table and, overall, how many phone calls were made within the specified dates of the report (<--This is working correctly)

OK, now I am officially confused... Instead of naming a table "Ralph", call it by what it represents: if it's a table where each record is a phone call, call it PhoneCalls; if each record is an interaction (which could perhaps be a phone call or another type?), then call it Interactions. Now what exactly do you have as your starting point?

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you. Forget what I said about Ralph and Interactions if that makes it easier, I was just decided to call it an arbitrary name since the tables actual name would probably be more confusing anyway.

My starting point for this report is Interaction. I then do a search based upon when the interaction was created. Because I'm not interested in the actual Interaction itself (There are thousands per report) I removed the Body of the layout and have two sub-summary parts which I then sort by by a Interaction -> Creation User field and then a field on my other table (In this case, City Name).

So basically the report ends up looking like;

"Staff Name1" - "Call Type1 "Call Type2" etc

"City Name1" 10 20

"City Name 3" 5 30

"City Name 4" 5 30

"Staff Name2" - "Call Type1 "Call Type2" etc

"City Name1" 10 20

"City Name 2" 5 30

Etc.....

I can create a Summary field that summarizes all Interactions, but if I try to create a field that totals only a sub-summary's set of records it still displays all of my Interactions.

Edit: Ya I duno if that little table is gonna do you any good. Let me see if I can upload a picture of the report

Report.pdf

Edited March 2, 201015 yr by Guest

OK, so what am I missing here?

Report.fp7.zip

There were a couple of things off...I changed some fields and added a table to represent the city. The report is mimicking what's appearing in mine. Basically, I want to only include specific types of Interactions with my report and that's why I can't just use a count SerielID summary field.

Thanks for the help!

Report_Copy.fp7.zip

Edited March 2, 201015 yr by Guest

I want to only include specific types of Interactions with my report and that's why I can't just use a count SerielID summary field.

That's why my script does a find - only types 1 and 2 are shown in the report.

There is a reason why I am steering you towards this type of report, rather than side-by-side: it is much simpler (and faster) this way.

Ok, I usually do my finds using the method described below but if there is an alternative option available I'm definitely open to it. The problem here is that I have asked the user to specify a date range for the report using global fields and am using the enter browse mode and set field commands to set a calculation with the date ranges (i.e.- 2/10/2010...3/2/2010) I've never used the Perform Find script step as I've never been able to get functionality like this to work, but if you could give me some pointers that would be appreciated.

Edit: I realize that I could perform multiple finds to omit and basically get the same result but if I can do the same thing in one script step I'd rather do that.

Edited March 2, 201015 yr by Guest

This will find phone OR fax records, within the given date range:

Enter Find Mode []

Set Field [ Datefield ; gStartDate & ".." & gEndDate ]

Set Field [ Type ; "Phone" ]

Duplicate Request

Set Field [ Type ; "Faz" ]

Perform Find []

Ok, I accomplished the find that I wanted to do by combining the set field with my calculated find with the find records step that includes the specific types of phone calls I want to include on my report.

Is there a specific advantage to doing it with the method you listed or is it pretty much the same thing?

Thanks for the help in dealing with this problem :)

I am not sure what exactly you did - by your description it sounds exactly the same.