I would like to include up to 3 conditions in a MailMerge field. Below is my current field which returns 1 if checkbox1 is checked.
if"<<cb1>>"="Yes" "Checked""Unchecked"
I would like to include checking of additional cb2 and cb3, to check if any of them are checked.
May I know how can it be done?
p.s. I left out the { } colons which I am not sure if it will be required here.
Edit: Tried the following structure but the output was Yes
if
"if"<<cb1>>"="Yes" "1""0""
+
"if"<<cb2>>"="Yes" "1""0""
+
"if"<<cb3>>"="Yes" "1""0""
>0
"1 or more checked""None checked"
Try a field coded as:
{IF{={IF«cb1»= "Yes" 1 0}+{IF«cb2»= "Yes" 1 0}+{IF«cb3»= "Yes" 1 0}}> 0 "1 or more checked" "None checked"}
Note: The field brace pairs (i.e. '{ }') for the above example are all created in the document itself, via Ctrl-F9 (Cmd-F9 on a Mac or, if you’re using a laptop, you might need to use Ctrl-Fn-F9); you can't simply type them or copy & paste them from this message. Nor is it practical to add them via any of the standard Word dialogues. Likewise, the chevrons (i.e. '« »') are part of the actual mergefields - which you can insert from the 'Insert Merge Field' dropdown (i.e. you can't type or copy & paste them from this message, either). The spaces represented in the field constructions are all required.
For example, you can create a field with logic such as: “If Condition 1 is met, then if Condition 2 is also met, display Result 1”. This is equivalent to saying “if both conditions are met, display Result 1”; but unfortunately you can't use “and” in Word fields.
Such a field would look something this:
{ IF [Condition 1] { IF [Condition 2] [Display Result 1] "" } "" }
The easiest way to create nested fields of this type is to create them separately, then cut and paste one field into the other.
Source
Related
Drools 5.4
I have a decision table that sets values in the BlueReport object based on Channel Name attribute. Everything works, except if a Channel name contains an unknown channel for which we don't have mappings, we need to set the values to indicate this condition. The picture below should illustrate this more clearly, I'm sure. Here is what we want:
How can we achieve the "ALL OTHERS" default condition?!
I've evolved my spreadsheet rules to this now:
In this version of DT above, I have left B15 blank, and then I have added a new condition on C15 which checks the auditRule field for presence of string variable "DIV". I don't know if I have the right syntax for it in C9?! The ruleAudit field is update everytime there is a match for Channel Name (F11 - F15). Therefore, absence of DIV rule name, would indicate that there is no match to any of the patterns on B11 - B14. What do you think?!
Add a new condition column again with declaration for blueReport and set this condition
channel_name!=$1 || channel_name!=$2 ||channel_name!=$3 || channel_name!=$4
New Condition's value field must be empty for the first four records except these values like ChannelName1,ChannelName2,ChannelName3,ChannelName4 in "ALL OTHERS" row. Though this isn't the standard solution try this workaround to check
I think the post can help you. It means you should not only declare sequential in the RuleSet, but also declare PRIORITY in RuleTable that the rules will be called according to the value of PRIORITY.
Note: This seems heavily related to Setting feature value to the count of containing annotation in UIMA Ruta. But I cannot quite apply the answer to my situation.
I am analyzing plain text documents where the following structure is assumed:
Document (one, of course)
Section (many)
Heading (one per section)
I am being asked to identify sections by checking whether their headings satisfy conditions. A useful and obvious sort of condition would be: does the heading match a given regular expression? A less-useful but perhaps more achievable condition would be: does the heading contain a given text?
I could and have already achieved this by taking a list of tuples of regular expressions and section titles, and at design time, for each member of the list, as such:
BLOCK(forEach) SECTION{} {
...
HEADING{REGEXP(".*table.*contents.*", true) ->
SETFEATURE("value", "Table of Contents")};
...
}
SECTION{ -> SETFEATURE("value", "Table of Contents")}
<- { HEADING.headingValue == "Table of Contents"; };
This approach is fairly straightforward but has a few big drawbacks:
It heavily violates the DRY principle
Even when writing the rule for just one section to identify, the rule author must copy the section title twice (it should only need to be specified once)
It makes the script needlessly long and unwieldy
It puts a big burden on the rule author, who in an ideal case, would only need to know Regex - not Ruta
So I wanted to refactor to achieve the following goals:
A text file is used to store the regular expressions and corresponding titles, and the rule iterates over these pairs
Features, rather than types, are used to differentiate different sections/headings (i.e. like above, using SECTION.value=="Table of Contents" and not TableOfContentsSection)
After looking over the UIMA Ruta reference to see which options were available to achieve these goals, I settled on the following:
Use a WORDTABLE to store tuples of section title, words to find / regex if possible, lookup type - so for instance, Table of Contents,contents,sectiontitles
Use MARKTABLE to mark an intermediate annotation type LookupMatch whose hint feature contains the section title and whose lookup feature contains the type of lookup we are talking about
For each HEADING, see if a LookupMatch.lookup == "sectiontitle" is inside, and if it is, copy the LookupMatch.hint to the heading's value field.
For each SECTION, see if a HEADING with a value is inside; if so, copy the value to the SECTION.value field.
It was not quite a surprise to find that implementing steps 3 and 4 was not so easy. That's where I am at and why I am asking for help.
// STEP 1
WORDTABLE Structure_Heading_WordTable =
'/uima/resource/structure/Structure_Heading_WordTable.csv';
// STEP 2
Document.docType == "Contract"{
-> MARKTABLE(LookupMatch, // annotation
2, // lookup column #
Structure_Heading_WordTable, // word table to lookup
true, // case-insensitivity
0, // length before case-insensitivity
"", // characters to ignore
0, // matches to ignore
"hint" = 1, "lookup" = 3 // features
)
};
// STEPS 3 AND 4 ... ???
BLOCK(ForEach) LookupMatch.lookup == "sectiontitle"{} {
???
}
HEADING{ -> SETFEATURE("value", ???)} <- {
???
};
Here is my first real stab at it:
HEADING{ -> SETFEATURE("value", lookupMatchHint)} <- {
LookupMatch.lookup == "HeadingWords"{ -> GETFEATURE("hint", lookupMatchHint)};
};
TL; DR
How can I conditionally copy a feature value from one annotation to another? GETFEATURE kind of assumes that you only get 1...
How can I grab partial value of field in iReport? for example I got a field
Field A contains = "This is a test script, please ignore"
I would like to remove "This is a test script, " and just display "please ignore" in my report
Is this possible?
You can simply use the standard string operations upon the field in the expression, like substring, charAt etc. to obtain the string of your requirement in the field.
For instance :
$F{myDatafield}.substring(10)
or
$F{myDatafield}.substring(0,10) etc.
Whatever suits your cause.
I need to add a few fields to a Word 2010 DOTX template which are to be populated automatically with custom content at "run time" when the document is opened in a C# program using Word Interop services. I don't see any way to assign a unique name to "Ask" or "Fill-In" fields when adding them to the template via the QuickParts ribbon-menu option.
When I iterate the document.Fields collection in the C# program, I must know which field I'm referencing, so it can be assigned the correct value.
It seems things have changed between previous versions of Word and Word 2010. So, if you answer please make sure your answer applies to 2010. Don't assume that what used to work in previous versions works in 2010. Much appreciated, since I rarely work with Word and feel like a dolt when trying to figure out the ribbon menuing in 2010.
You are correct in that fields don't necessarily have a built-in way to uniquely distinguish themselves from other field instances (other than its index in the Fields collection). However, you can use the Field.Type property to test for wdFieldAsk or wdFieldFillIn . If this is not narrow enough to ID then you will need to parse your own unique identifier from the Field.Code. For example, you can construct your FILLIN field as:
{ FILLIN "Hello, World!" MYIDENTIFER }
when you iterate through your document.Fields collection just have a test for the identifier being in the string. EDIT: example:
For Each fld In ActiveDocument.Fields
If InStr("CARMODEL", fld.Code) <> 0 Then
''this is the carmodel field
End If
Next
Another alternative - seek your specific field with a Find.Text for "^d MYIDENTIFIER" (where ^d is expression for 'field code')
Let me know if this helps and expand on your question if any gaps.
I have 3 fields in an access form.
Field 1 - is a text field pre-populated with some data. There are no null records
Field 2 - is a text field pre-populated with some data. It can either have a value or be null.
Field 3 - Is a text field. The user will enter information into the field.
There is a rule. If there is a null value in field 2, then field 3 will equal the value from field 1 and so I want it to automatically populate field 3 from field 1. if the value is not null, then the user will populate the field record manually.
I have set up a form load event to:
If Me.field2 = "" Then
Me.field3 = Me.field1
The problem I am having is, the user may want to change the pre-populated value of field 1 and if the corresponding field 2 record is blank, I want field 3 to be updated with the same value the user changed in field 1. I don't want to have to reload the form all the time for this update to occur. I've tried the above syntax in a After_Update event and a change event, but it's not updating.
Can anyone suggest what I am doing wrong?
Thanks,
Mike
another test for empty string or null is
if len(field1 & "")=0 then 'do null stuff
appending an empty string to null or an empty string results in an empty string, which you can then test for length
Mike's already got his answer, but I'll give a fuller answer in the form of an explanation.
The problem here is that you are trying to compare a field that is null to an empty string. It's like you've done
if null = "" then
'do stuff
end if
The problem is when null is used in a comparison, the result is always null - which causes the if to evaluate to false. You can't even do this:
if not(null) then
'do stuff
end if
or
if not (null <> "") then
'do stuff
end if
The conventional solution is to us isnull(x), which evaluates to true if x is null.
As Tim Williams indicate, you can use:
IsNull(x) or x=""
Some might consider the x="" to be redundant if x can only return null for an empty string.
This works too:
if Nz(Field1, "") <> "" then 'do null / empty stuff