Jump to content

Import file access on import....


This topic is 2521 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.

Recommended Posts

To my surprise it is an incredible hassle to check a prior version source file on import and see if it has a particular table and/or a particular field present.

 

When the import target has a table and the source does *not*, FM substitutes a different source table and imports inappropriate data.

 

Open File 'could' do the job but it does not recognize $variables in the path to the Data Source.

 

What is left is to insert the source file into a container and then export it somewhere else... like a temp path. 

 

What an incredible hassle.  The lack of this feature makes updating my application (by adding new tables and fields) a real hassle.  (When I say 'updating' I  mean importing data from a previous version selected by the user.  A version which could be any of dozens of filenames).

 

Come on Filemaker.  Give me a break.  Implement a feature that makes this easy.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It already has.  You can run a script in any file from the outside without having a reference to the file (fmp protocol).  Make that script one that reports on the internal structure and import that data into your new version.

 

Check out ExecuteSQL and the internal FileMaker_Tables and FileMaker_Fields metatables.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It already has.  You can run a script in any file from the outside without having a reference to the file (fmp protocol).  Make that script one that reports on the internal structure and import that data into your new version.

 

Check out ExecuteSQL and the internal FileMaker_Tables and FileMaker_Fields metatables.

Isn't it a precondition that the 'file' that holds the script must either be 'OPEN' or on the 'Relationship Graph'?  Isn't it also true that ExecuteSQL REQUIRES the file whose 'internal structure' I want to examine, be on the 'Relationship Graph'?  Therein lies the problem in my understanding.

 

I am obviously confused.  Can you give me an example of how I would "...run a script from outside without having a reference to the file?"  It seems that FM script commands require the file to be open or on the graph...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all in the help file really.  Check out ActiveX on Windows and AppleScript on the Mac on how to run a script from the outside without a file reference. The new "fmp" protocol may be an alternative here. There are plenty of examples out there on the internet to take apart.  I've spoken about these things at many devcons over the last 10+ years.

 

Do some research on these options and post back with specific questions...


The idea is to run a script in the "old" file so you don't have to worry about adding a file reference to the "new" file.  The script in the old file can do all the internal interrogation that it needs and export that report.  You can then import that in the "new" file and compare it the to the internal structure of the new file.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the ideas.

 

I read the suggestion that I learn ActiveX and Applescript as another way of saying it can not be done from native Filemaker?

 

As for specific questions this is what I am trying to do:

From Filemaker..." it is an incredible hassle to check a prior version source file on import and see if it has a particular table and/or a particular field present.

 

When the import target has a table and the source does *not*, FM substitutes a different source table and imports inappropriate data.

 

Open File 'could' do the job but it does not recognize $variables in the path to the Data Source.

 

What is left is to insert the source file into a container and then export it somewhere else... like a temp path.  I find it perplexing that Filemaker allows a variable as a path and filename (think $$Path) when importing, but not when adding a file go the Relationship Diagram.  Or is there some way to do that from Native Filemaker????  I hope this is specific and clear.  If not, I can repeat what I am trying to say until it is clear.  (I think the clarity of the communication rests with the speaker... in this case, me)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.  Replys are without substantive value and posters appear unwilling truly help.  Perhaps it is because they want to give enough information to 'persuade' me that they know the solution with the hope that I will hire them to implement it.  Regretfully, since my app is free for a non-profit, that is not an option.  So, I conclude that FM does not perform the desired functionality. 

 

If/when I figure it out, I will post the solution here for the benefit of others.

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the ideas.

 

I read the suggestion that I learn ActiveX and Applescript as another way of saying it can not be done from native Filemaker?

 

 

Support for ActiveX and AppleScript (and the fmp protocol) are all native FM features...

 

They are there to do exactly what you have in mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Replys are without substantive value and posters appear unwilling truly help.  

 

Please be respectful of those who post to assist you. You cannot always have answers handed to you but that does not mean their answers are without value.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am baffled as to what you think I said that is 'disrespectful'??? 

 

Perhaps it was when I said "Come on Filemaker.  Give me a break.  Implement a feature that makes this easy."? 

 

If so, it sounds like others (perhaps with Filemaker connections) took this remark personally for some not evident reason.  And 'respect' flows two ways don't you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I quoted (quite obviously) what I thought was disrespectful, Ron.  


You would spend a fortune if you paid Wim and others for their assistance.  Regardless whether you like their answers, they give their time freely to assist.  You cannot always have the answers handed to you; sometimes it means you must take their suggestion and go do some work yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Information without context is useless.

 

That being said, I contributed to this forum because of a reply I got from Wim that was incredibly useful and that solved a problem I had been struggling with for months.    And, it was a problem that had been posted several times before and received numerous replies; none of which were solutions in context.  So, again, "Thanks Wim". 

 

I do not "EXPECT" others to hand me a solution.   And, I do not expect to be branded as 'disrespectful' because I find a feature lacking..  I think I am entitled to an opinion; even about Filemaker.  Or, are only praiseworthy comments about Filemaker allowed?  Apparently, I need to know the rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you re-read your quote, you did not say that you were talking about FileMaker at all - it looks like you were speaking about the help you receive here.  Regardless, just because you don't always get answers is no reason to dis someone (anyone).

 

You further go on and say none of the replies you received were 'in context.'  Do you realise how difficult it is for us to always know what you want?  I have been assisting on various forums for 10 years now and I STILL misjudge what someone wants more often than I like but that does not mean I should be unappreciated for TRYING.  Sometimes just responding brings out other needed information from the person and, also possibly,  just because you say it isn't 'in context' doesn't mean it isn't in context.  Most of the folks who respond to you know a LOT MORE about FileMaker than you do.

 

The developers on this forum spend a LOT of time helping you (you post for assistance more than anyone here) and your attitude about it is that you expect answers and perfect answers every time.  That will not always happen.  Obviously we respond with what we THINK is in context ... otherwise why would we take our precious time to respond at all?  Most of us make $100+ per hour ... how much money have you saved by assistance here?  I suggest that YOU put things in proper context.

 

I refuse to continue debating with you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.  I just read this from one of your posts on this thread, "Perhaps it is because they want to give enough information to 'persuade' me that they know the solution with the hope that I will hire them to implement it. "

 

HOW RUDE.  Most developers are swamped with plenty of work and they don't need to spend their time trying to provide incorrect information just so you will hire them.  I cannot believe you said that.  I'm done - otherwise I will say things I will regret ... not because I wouldn't mean them but out of respect for forum rules.

Edited by LaRetta
Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 2521 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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