I'm putting my banking information in a LibreOffice Calc spreadsheet.
I have columns as follows, that I imported from my bank account:
Date | USD | Description | Category
----------+-------+---------------------------------------------+----------
2/28/2019 | 44.00 | POS 0123 2345 123456 FRED-MEYER #02 | groceries
2/27/2019 | 2.50 | PANDA EXPRESS #123 TIGARD OR - 123546789012 | lunch
These descriptions are very unpredictable, they're whatever merchants want them to be, but they can tell me useful information about what I spent my money on. I've used this information to manually enter the categories. But I'm looking to automate this for common things.
So, I created a separate sheet with lookup values, like so:
Expression | Category
-----------+----------
FRED-MEYER | groceries
PANDA | lunch
I am looking for a formula in the "Category" column of the first sheet to automatically determine categories, based on the lookup table in the second sheet. (Obviously I don't plan for the lookup table to be exhaustive, but whatever I don't put in there, I can enter in the first sheet manually, thus overwriting the formulas.)
I had this working fine in Excel using a nifty construct of SEARCH and MATCH. (I don't even understand it anymore and I don't have Excel to check.) But since I'm now a Linux user, I'm trying to use LibreOffice, and I've not been able to make this work with formulas. I tried SEARCH, MATCH, LOOKUP, VLOOKUP, FIND, with and without regexes and with different options on/off. But no success so far.
I think this is very similar to this question, though it was only answered for Excel (I'm using Calc).
Related
I am creating a custom Agile based process and want to automate priority using the formula Value / Effort and I wish to store the value of this calculation in a new field called something like "Auto Priority". Is this possible?
So my backlog ordered by Auto Priority would end up something like this:
+-------+--------+---------------+
| Value | Effort | Auto Priority |
+-------+--------+---------------+
| 5 | 1 | 5 |
| 8 | 3 | 2.6 |
| 3 | 3 | 1 |
| 1 | 5 | 0.2 |
+-------+--------+---------------+
I have tried making a custom rule for this but there doesn't seem to be an action for making any basic calculations. Only other option I can see is to create my own custom control.
Is this possible?
Of course yes. And I'm afraid, the best choice for you would be adding a custom control.
1) For VSTS, there has another option: Microsoft Flow. But what the issue is, you are using TFS rather than VSTS, so this does not work for you because Microsoft Flow does not has connector with TFS until now.
2) Another one is do work item numeric calculation with Excel.
In Excel, you can get work items fields value, do excel calculation and save it back to TFS. You can connect the calculated fields in Excel with the fields in TFS work item.
If you don't want to make use of custom control, this would the easiest way that you can think of.
Note: This method need you use Excel as TFS client during changes of work item fields, which will also have impact on calculated field.
3) There has one plugin which can enable running custom script when Work Items change, also include allowing dynamic calculation of field values in TFS.
You can consider based on your actual scenario.
I am VERY new to Access - I was sort of thrust into designing a database for a research project I'm involved in. So, please bear with me because I know next to nothing :) The problem I am having is thus:
My database is for a medical research project, and is very time and date dependent, by which I mean I need to capture the date and time for each piece of data so that we end up with a sort of timeline of events for each subject.
As is, I have something like the following for each piece of data: (Each in it's own field)
ArrivalDate
ArrivalTime
HeartRateDate
HeartRateTime
HeartRateData
TemperatureDate
TemperatureTime
TemperatureData
BloodPressureDate
BloodPressureTime
BloodPressureData
There are around 200 similar pieces of data that I need to collect for each patient. To avoid having to re-enter the same data over and over, and also to reduce the potential for error, I would like to have all of the date fields in a given patient record default to the first one that is entered, in this case "Arrival Date". However, I also need each date field to be editable without affecting the others. The reason for this is that in the event that a patient's visit occurs over the span of a few days we can accurately record that.
I have tried messing around with the default value setting, as well as setting the control source to reference the "Arrival Date" field, but then of course any changes to one field affect them all. I am not even sure that what I am trying to do is possible but I will appreciate any help and/or suggestions!
Thank you in advance
Having all this data in separate columns of a big table isn't going to work. You don't measure things like temperature or blood pressure only once per patient, do you?
This is a classic one-to-many relation.
You should have a separate Measurements table, looking e.g. like this:
+--------+-----------+---------------+------------------+-----------+
| MeasID | PatientID | MeasType | MeasDateTime | MeasValue |
+--------+-----------+---------------+------------------+-----------+
| 1 | 1 | Temperature | 2017-05-17 14:30 | 38.2 |
| 2 | 1 | BloodPressure | 2017-05-17 14:30 | 130/90 |
| 3 | 1 | Temperature | 2017-05-17 18:00 | 38.5 |
| 4 | 2 | Temperature | etc. | |
+--------+-----------+---------------+------------------+-----------+
As Barmar wrote, there is no reason to have separate columns for date and time.
In the form where measurements are entered, you can use the BeforeInsert event to set MeasDateTime to the current time, with the Now() function.
So the user never has to enter it manually, but they can edit it if the measurement was at a different time than entering the data.
I have a table format that appears in this type of format:
email | interest | major | employed |inserttime
jake#example.com | soccer | | true | 12:00
jake#example.com | | CS | true | 12:01
Essentially, this is a survey application and users sometimes hit the back button to add new fields. I later changed the INSERT logic to UPSERT so it just updated the row where email=currentUsersEmail , however for the data inserted prior to this code change there are many duplicate entries for single users. i have tried some group by's with no luck, as it continually says the
ID column must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used in an
aggregate function.
Certainly there will be edge cases where there may be clashing data, in this case maybe user entered true for the employed column and then in the second he/she could have enter false. For now I am not going to take this into account yet.
I simply want to merge or flatten these values into a single row, in this case it would look like:
email | interest | major | employed |inserttime
jake#example.com | soccer | CS | true | 12:01
I am guessing I would take the most recent inserttime. I have been writing the web application in scala/play, but for this task i think probably using a language like python might be easier if i cannot do it directly through psql.
You can GROUP BY and flatten using MAX():
SELECT email, MAX(interest) AS interest,
MAX(major) AS major,MAX(employed) AS employed,
MAX(inserttime) AS inserttime
FROM your_table
GROUP BY email
I have a field from the data I am reading in that can contain multiple values. They are essentially tags.
For example, there could be a column called "persons responsible". This could read "Joe; Bob; Sue" or "Sue" for a given row.
Is it possible from within Tableau to read these in as separate categories? So that for this sample data:
Project | Persons
---------------------------
Zeta | Bob; Sue; Joe
Enne | Sue
Doble Ve | Bob
There could be a count of Bob (2), Sue (2), Joe (1)?
I am working on getting better data inputs, but I was wondering if there was a temporary solution at this level.
I would definitely work towards normalizing your schema.
In the meantime, there is a workaround that is almost reasonable if there is a small set of possible values for the tags (persons in your example).
If Bob, Sue and Joe are the only people in the system, you can use the contains() function to define a boolean calculated field for each person -- e.g. Bob_Is_Responsible = contains(Persons, 'Bob"), and similar fields for Sue and Joe. Then you could use those as building blocks, possibly with sets, to break the data up in different ways.
Of course, this approach gets cumbersome fast if the number of tags grows, or if it is unconstrained. But you asked for a temporary solution ...
If the number of elements is small, you write and union several queries with each one having the project and nth element.
Ideally, you'd reshape your data to look like this either in the database or with the above mentioned union technique. Then you could count() or countd() the elements by project.
Project | Persons
---------------------------
Zeta | Bob
Zeta | Sue
Zeta | Joe
Enne | Sue
Doble Ve | Bob
I have a report that joins multiple tables. One possibility for this join is that no rows are returned under part of the selections criteria. Sort of.
I have 3 groups: Movie Rental Place, Type of Movie, Rented / Not Rented / No Interest to Rent.
So an example could be:
Blockbuster | Comedy | Rented: List rented movies.
Blockbuster | Comedy | Not Rented: List movies not rented.
Blockbuster | Comedy | No Interest to Rent: List movies not interested in renting.
Now, I do not want to suppress a section if it is empty, I want to print something else in the Details section of CR. Is there a way to do this?
I am using CR 11.5.
Thanks
Go to Section Expert and check the "Suppress blank section" option. Add a new section below it (for the static message) and add a suppress formula to that section that uses some isnull check on whichever column indicates "no data".
Before, when I was attempting to create a custom formula for the Details section, I was testing on NULL values, when the report was setup to give default values for NULL values. Once I removed that, things worked as intended.
Thanks