Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

FMForums.com

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Related Fields not displaying Correct data (With Screenshots)

Featured Replies

This is really bugging me..I have a sales rep, customer, and sales order tables all related in a linear fashion. See image below. I have a layout based on the Sales Rep table with a portal on that layout showing related records from the SalesRep.Customer.Salesorder table.(Showing all sales orders by that sales rep) This is fine. Now, I want to show Customer's Company Name in the portal row, So I add field SalesRep.Customer::CompanyName to the portal. Doesnt work.(Column Company Name 1)

 

NOW, just for fun, I added a second SalesRep.Customer.SalesOrder.Customer(Shown on far right of graph). I pull in that ::CompanyName and it works!(Column Company Name 2)  I'm uncomfortable with this behavior. Any explanations?

 

 

 

PbPMQd2.jpg?1

ZptvEiU.jpg

 

Thanks in advance.

Hi GisMo!

 

You are hitting what is known as the grandchild issue.  FileMaker, from parent, looks past the child to the grandchild and sees the first grandchild of it's first related child.  It does not really look through the child to make that determination.  I can probably find a link where it was discussed in depth.  I had also started to put together a demo explaining it because it does not seem correct to me either but it has a logic to it from FileMaker's POV.

 

I have to leave but I'll try to find more information on it and post here as well - or I'll finish that demo.

  • Author

Hi! Thanks! I figured it was something like that. Why does one table work and the other not? Or is that the expected/reliable behavior? Is this the best solution for this(Like the example above?)? Or is it something like creating more foreign keys to flatten out the database? (Also seems messy)

 

I found this related post and seems to use what I have done which is to create another table occurrence to get what record I need: http://forums.filemaker.com/posts/5d251c966a

 

I guess I'm trying to understand WHY this works the way it does.

Well, I could not suggest without seeing the file.  Here is the link I was looking for - starring our own Mr. Comment and Mr_Vodka ... two of our best:

 

http://fmforums.com/forum/topic/62292-relationship-sorting-question-table-a-to-table-c-via-table-b/?hl=grandchild#entry294550

 

It is not an easy issue to explain.  I don't have time to search for the demo file I had created  - maybe I can get to that tomorrow. But you will need another relationship as you've done. 

 

But you might consider using ExecuteSQL() also.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Important Information

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

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.