This topic is 2183 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.
I think I'm constructing a Rube Goldberg-esque solution to my problem. Here's the application domain. I have a table of records that correspond to patent applications, which are commonly referred to as matters. A matter can claim (but does not have to) immediate priority to one and only one other matter. However, more than one matter can claim priority to the same matter, and a matter that has matter(s) which claim priority to it can itself claim priority to a matter. When a matter claims priority to another matter, this means that the former matter is of lower priority than the latter matter.
I realize this is confusing, so here's a concrete example that I've been using for testing purposes. Say there are seven matters A, B, C, D, E, F, G. B and C claim priority to A, and are thus of lower priority than A. D and E claim priority to B, and are thus of lower priority than B and A. F and G claim priority to E, and are thus of lower priority than E, B, and A.
For what it's worth, I created another table called priority, which lists two matters, the matter claiming priority, and the matter to which it claims priority. So, in the example, there are six records in this new table, one for each priority relationship. In hindsight, this is perhaps not needed, since in my main matter table, I could simply have a matter refer to another matter to which it claims priority.
Now, the problem. Per the concrete example listed above, the result of matters claiming priority to other matters effectively results in a hierarchical tree. I want to list all the matters that are in the same tree -- that is, all the matters in any priority chain. So, regardless if I start at matter A, B, C, D, E, F, or G, I end up with the same list of matters.
Here's how I've done this. I have a first script that finds the highest priority matter in the tree. So, if you started at A, you're OK, because A is the highest priority. But if you start from E, say, it would find B as being of higher priority, and then finally find A as being of highest priority. That is, regardless of whether you start at A, B, C, D, E, F, or G, you always end up at A.
Then, this script calls a second script that recursively calls itself. The second script has a parameter that is a current matter. It locates any matters that claim priority to the current matter. If there are any such matters, for each of these matters the script calls itself again, to determine whether there are any matters that claim priority to these matters. This recursion continues until it locates all matters that do not have any other matter claiming priority to them.
This indeed works as expected. Once we get to A in the first script, the call to the second script passing A finds B and C. For each of B and C, the second script calls itself. When the second script is operating on B as the current matter, it finds D and E, and when operating on E as the current matter, it finds F and G.
What I don't like about this approach is that there is a *LOT* of searching going on. But it does work.
The idea is that once I get all the matters in a family -- i.e., all of A, B, C, D, E, F, and G -- I can list these applications in a layout, and long-term, call some (external) tree building tool appropriately to create a visual representation.
Critically, though, a user is just going to specify at most one priority relationship for any given matter, that the given matter claims priority to (and thus is of lower priority than) another matter. From these priority relationships, then, I need to figure out the family of matters.
I've been trying to write a Custom Function that will give me a list of unique combinations between two occurrences of the same list.
The nearest I've come is with this Function, using the following list as an example 1,2,3,4
ListCombinations ( listofValues ; separator )
Let([ listLength = ValueCount(listOfValues); lastValue = GetValue(listOfValues; listLength); lesserList = Case( listLength > 1; ListCombinations(LeftValues(listOfValues; listLength -1 ); separator); "") ]; Case( listLength = 0; ""; listLength = 1; RightValues(listOfValues; 1); /* Ensures ¶ at end */ lastValue & "¶" & lesserList & /* already terminated by ¶ */ Substitute(lesserList; "¶"; separator & lastValue & "¶") ) ) The output comes out looking like this: 4
1 | 2
2 | 3
1 | 3
1 | 2 | 3
3 | 4
2 | 4
1 | 4
1 | 2 | 4
2 | 3 | 4
1 | 3 | 4
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
What I want is for the output to be limited to only the 2 number values, shown below. I've had a play with the Function, but I think I've been looking at it too long and can't make hide nor hair of what I need to change to produce the below list
1 | 2
2 | 3
1 | 3
3 | 4
2 | 4
1 | 4
Thank You for An Help in Advance
Let say I want to create a blog in which user can add comments. Each comment can also be commented.
I want to create a field that calculates the total number of comments a blog or a comment has.
Here is the tables structure
Blogs (id, article, c_nbComments...)
Comments (id, id_blog, id_parentComment, comment, c_nbComments, ...)
Let say I have two groups of Anchor-buoy
BL__BLOGS --< bl_COMMENTS
CMT__COMMENTS --< cmt_COMMENTS__children
So how can I calculate the total number of comments for each blog or comments?
By cat traveller
still I did not fully understand how to implement recursion....
admittedly I am lost- and very much so:
There is a list of values = list
By script, I am looping through another list with keys.
Now I would like to check if the key is in the list.
First I was thinking to get the value with Position ( list ; key; 1; 1).
The problem is that in list, there might be 4651 and key might be 6, which would make Position true.
However 4651 is not 6.
Hence, I thought to loop through list by recursion and to check with the "=" but I dont know how to build this:
list = thelist;
k = thekey
counter = 1
c = valuecount (thelist)
Case ( counter > c ; "";
// this is my exit
GetValue ( list; 1) = k ; 1;
and here is am not getting the calc to recurse...
My second thought was to turn 6 into 0006 and then use Position. However the Length of the keys might change and
it seems not the right approach.
Who could help a dummy, please....
Single Table Tree Structure Database.
Every record has a unique ID and a parent ID.
The Parent ID always matches some other records unique ID
A Parent can have multiple Children.
A child only has a single parent.
The root record has a parent ID that matches it's own ID (or zero if you like)
Given any ID I need to be able to search up through the tree to find the first parent record or parents parent record etc that has a character field = "Diamond". If not found I need to be able to return the root record.
Given the same ID I need to be able to provide a list of all the children, childrens children etc of the given record ordered by name or ID.
When displaying any record it would be great to be able to display who the parent is that is "Diamond" and list all the children as well.
Both functions would seem to require recursion but this is a little beyond me.
Who Viewed the Topic