Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
geraldh

Replacing empty fields with "N/A" -- should be straightforward but...

Recommended Posts

Hello all,

I've got a record with about 100 fields that I would like to save to a pdf and then to have printed.

But before saving and printing I would like to replace all the empty edit fields with "N/A".

I've done Find/Replace with "=" into the Find field. But this doesn't seem to be working...?

I've tried """", but no luck with this either.

What might I be doing wrong?

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated....

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are looking for in Replace Field Contents. However, IMHO storing N/A in the field may not be the right thing to do just for printing. You can various methods to display N/A including creating a new layout and using merge fields, merge variables, etc to display the data or N/A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr_vodka,

Thank you for your response.

If I were to create a new layout, specifically for printing, I would then do a calculation to replace field contents if empty?

However for our record keeping I cannot see any harm in having a "N/A" as a value. I would consider my original plan if it is much easier to implement.

I would appreciate your opinoin.

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you can use Replace Field Contents if you have to replace all values in your found set for a particular field ( in your example after the find ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be slightly off the topic, but there are very few things that require 100 fields to describe them. It's possible, even likely, that you have a structural issue. If so, this task could be significantly easier if you fixed the structure first.

I cannot see any harm in having a "N/A" as a value.

They are hardly the same thing. In any case, you could either replace the field contents, or use conditional formatting to display the text "N/A" when a field is empty. Both solutions are extremely tedious to implement with 100 fields - hence the suggestion above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.