Filter Portal Table With Specific field name

[samarthmkt]

Dear Friends

As I have make the simple Estimate file for quotes the product. Every thing is ok only one thing which I could not get the solution. Though I have try several options but unable to get the result. When I prepare the estimate quotes for a particular company of different products items. As I select the first line item name and click that item name field .By script Here I get the product details of that item name and also the no of companies name to whom this item name has been transact. Its ok but I want to filter this item name by the selected company for what we are preparing the quotes. It will be helpful for me to preview the details of last transaction of this item name by selected company. I hope it can be filter in existing portal table in products details or by popover on add item name portal table in estimate data

Thanks

[Charity]

I do not mean to be rude but your layouts hurts my eyes.  If I had to stare at those images all day I would probably need to take Pepto-Bismol by the gallon.  I can not even get by the colors enough to read the labels or text.

I am sorry I do not know how to help you with your problem but I notice your script has Go To Layout[original layout] at the start of it and that script step does no good because there was not an original layout at the beginning of that script to go back to.  That steps works later to return to a layout indicated in the same script only.

[eos]

Go To Layout[original layout] at the start of it and that script step does no good because there was not an original layout at the beginning of that script to go back to.

​There is always an original layout to go back to, because whatever you do in FM happens in the context of a layout.

Since there is no step to set an “original” layout, this “original layout” is (implicitly) whatever layout you were on when the script was started. 

Edited May 6, 2015 by eos

[Charity]

yes but starting a script with it does nothing.  the script must go to a layout first before it can go back to original layout.  Isn't that correct?  It can't go back to a layout which isn't indicated first in that script.

It must have Go To Layout [ somewhere ] FIRST in the script before it can Go To Layout [original layout ].  I am talking about the beginning Go To Layout[Original layout] not the one later.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Charity

[Charity]

How does that script know what they layout was before that script started?  It does not know where the person might have manually gone nor which layouts a prior script went to.  So starting a script with Go To Layout [ original layout ] does nothing because it is where it starts so it can not go back to itself because it has never left yet. I may not be explaining well.

[eos]

Let's agree that

1. the “original layout” is set implicitly when you switch layouts, and 2. yes, it doesn't make sense to use that step at that point. (It does no harm, either.)

Another thing that doesn't make sense is using Go to Field [ SomeTable::someField ] directly before using SetField [ SomeTable::someField ].

[Charity]

So you were incorrect in correcting me.  And it should not be there if, as I stated originally, it does no good and does not serve a purpose.

I have no idea why you mentioned Go To Field.  Nobody said anything about that.

Oh because they have that also.  No, that should not be there and they should be told it does not need to be there.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Charity

[eos]

So you were incorrect in correcting me.​

You said there is no “original layout”, and I said there is always an original layout in a script. Good enough for you?

And it should not be there if, as I stated originally, it does no good and does not serve a purpose.

​Which is correct (for the first instance of that step); but I didn't refer to that step at all.

I have no idea why you mentioned Go To Field.

Because it doesn't serve any purpose, either; while we're picking apart that script, why not have some more fun? 

[Charity]

You said there is no “original layout”, and I said there is always an original layout in a script. Good enough for you?

​Good enough for me?  No.  

There is no 'original layout' in a script until it goes to a different layout.  

If you re-read what I said, that you quoted, I said, "Go To Layout[original layout] at the start of it and that script step does no good because there was not an original layout at the beginning of that script to go back to."  Why would you quote me and correct me if you were not talking about that original specific instance?

There is NOT an 'original layout' at the beginning of script before you go to another layout.  Good enough for you?  

I am not posting here to 'have fun' with the person or to pick. I am showing them that step was unnecessary which I am grateful Comment and others correct me when I do not have something optimized.

​I no longer wish to engage with you on this thread.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Charity

[Lee Smith]

@Charity, 

I do not mean to be rude but your layouts hurts my eyes.  If I.....

But yet, you went ahead and forced your opinion about their schema anyway. Please keep your personal opinions about things like this to yourself, unless they ask for it. Otherwise it amounts to a personal attack.

Go to Layout Help read the section on Options.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Lee Smith

[LaRetta]

I do not think giving a personal opinion is an attack, Lee.  If someone creates a poor structure, we say so.  If someone provides a calculation which breaks or is convoluted, we say so.  And yes, it is always our personal opinion which is the only opinion we can give.  

Charity did not attack the person.  She said the design hurt her eyes.  We offer opinions all the time - that is what this forum is for.  I feel it is our obligation to give feedback.

[LaRetta]

By the way, many developers refer to this type of design as 'angry fruit salad'.  You can do a search here on forums and come across many times that many of us have commented on someone's design as such.  

Added:  That is not a personal attack at all but rather good, honest feedback which we developers should listen to.  And I agree ... I would find it very difficult to work, looking at those layouts all day.  In fact, I think I would quit.

Edited May 6, 2015 by LaRetta

[Charity]

I gave my opinion yes.  I have that right.  I have read the rules and I did not attack the person at all. But if someone posts something that is difficult to read or understand or that I think is poor design then I have a right to say so.  I was trying to help.  I stand by what I posted.  Hearing others opinions is not always cookies and cream.

[eos]

Charity,

I didn't mean to offend you, or correct you unduly; my apologies if I wrote unwisely and invoked that impression.

Now, maybe this thread could get back on topic, i.e. would someone like to assist samarthmkt in his quest ( or, for starters, recommend a capable UI designer … )?

[LaRetta]

Well said, Oliver.

Samarthmkt, we truly do not wish to offend you - it is quite possible that you inherited this design or were asked to use this colors but I think it is important to accept opinions from developers and when we see something amiss or that will cause you problems later, we do you a disservice to keep quiet.   

I cannot identify your structure from your screen shots and we need to know it to understand how to assist you here.  Can you zip and post your file for us? :-)

[samarthmkt]

Thanks La Retta,

As you all are Guru's and you comments will be courage me to work in right direction. So I never take in mind. As per your request I simply zipping the file.

QUOTE SE .rar

[eos]

 

As you all are Guru's

​Flattery will get you somewhere, I guess … 

Kidding & aesthetics aside, you really should use auto-entered, meaningless IDs in all of your tables; this includes Estimate Data, where there isn't a primary key at all. To make this sample work, I had to introduce one; you should do the same in your production file, and use Replace Field Contents to update the existing records.
 
By the same token, you're using the item name as match fields in relationships; not a good idea …

Check out the sample file; a script tries to find estimate data records for the same item and customer; if there are any, it gathers the IDs (that's why we need them – identify a record uniquely (and conveniently)), sets them into a global field that drives a relationship, and opens a popover with a portal into that relationship – otherwise you're told that there are no earlier transactions.

 

This is a quick implementation, and you should manually verify that the results are correct (they look plausible to me, but I didn't want to spend too much time …) – so you know it's not “quick & dirty” … 

QUOTE SE_eosMOD.fmp12.zip