I have created a registration form using drag and drop and storing details in an array . But the problem is it is storing only one member details . if i fill another details the first member details are replaced by second ones . how i can get solution to this issue .
Create an array of objects and use a looping statement to traverse through the array and with the help of this keyword store your information in different objects. This way your member details will not be lost.
Related
How can I create an array in firestore that can save external links?
I want to save the title and the href so that I can use both values in the read.
I want the links attribute to be an array so that I can save multiple links. Is it possible to do that in a single firebase attribute, or should I create separate link attributes with a href and title for each one (ie firstLinkTitle, firstLinkHref)?
It's not possible to have a number of links, that would be a different array - similar to an array of arrays.
The possibility for the creation of a field of type array for your documents, you can either use the console, where this type is available or via code as the following example:
const data = {
stringExample: 'Example',
arrayExample: ['Title', 'href']
};
const res = await db.collection('data').doc('one').set(data);
With the above example, you should be able to create a field of type array and set the data to it.
Besides that, if you want to update data from your array without uploading all the data again, you can use the function arrayUnion() or use the arrayRemove(), to remove elements from it.
You can get more information on how to work with arrays in Firestore, by checking the below documentation.
Add Data
In case you need something like nested arrays, indeed, you will need to have a "child" collection that will be linked to the father one.
Let me know if the information helped you!
I have a table called transactions. Within that is a field called ipn_type. I would like to create separate table occurrences for the different ipn types I may have.
For example, one value for ipn_type is "dispute". In the past I would create a global field called "rel_dispute" and I would populate that with the value of "dispute". Then I could create a new table occurrence of the transactions table, and make a relationship based on transactions::ipn_type = transactions::rel_dispute. This way only the dispute records would show up in my new table occurrence.
Not long ago, somebody pointed out to me that this is no longer necessary, and there is a simpler way to setup such a relationship to create a new table occurrence. I can't for the life of me remember how that was done, though.
Any information on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
To show a found set of only one type, you must either perform a find or use the Go to Related Record script step to show only related records. What you describe as your previous setup fits the latter.
The simpler way is to perform a find - either on demand, or by a script triggered OnLayoutEnter.
The new 'easy' way is probably:
using one base relationship only and
filtering only the displaying portal by type. This can be done with a global field, a global variable containing current display type. Multiple portals with different filter conditions are possible as well.
~jens
I am relatively new to Filemaker programming, but I have come across what I thought was a bug, which I have been tearing my hair out trying to squash, only to find it is more a "feature" than a bug. I have a field set as the key for lookups in a ms sql database which I have created a relationship with. I have it set as a drop down, and it is showing 2 fields (last name and first name). Unfortunately, it only shows 1 person per last name in the sorted list (example, there are 5 people with the last name "Bennett" but only 1 shows). After driving myself nuts trying to find the error, I found the following in the filemaker troubleshooting section:
"
If the value list is defined to display information from two fields, items will not be duplicated for the field on which the value list is sorted. For example, if the value list displays information from the Company field and the Name field, and if the values are sorted by the Company field, only one person from each company will appear in the value list."
As I read it, I can't do what I need to do with a value list (display EVERY last name from the sql file) so what other options do I have? I have experimented with creating a portal which DOES show a list of ALL the last names and first names, but I don't know/understand enough to know what logic/functionality I need so if I click one of the people in the portal list it will do the same thing as if I clicked it in a dropdown value list, which is to then do the lookups and populate the rest of the fields in this database from the information in the record in the sql database. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated, and I appreciate any help any of you can offer. Thank you!
There might be some things that cause this;
You cannot create a link based on a calculation that needs to be calculated each time (Filemaker does not know what to do with this, logical in a way)
Based on what you do I would personally link the two tables based on an lets say company ID instead of a name, as a one to many join. This will definitely eliminate the 'feature' filemaker has of showing unique names only in the joined table. On database level I would join on ID, on Value list I would select the ID as first field and the (calculated) name as second field, than showing only the second field (option in the value list definition popup) for your selection list.
Hope this helps.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
How to sequentialy access a dictionary??
I have a dictionary , I want to reitrive all keys in an array with the same order which exist inside the dictionary . The documentation on "allKeys" method of NSDictionary says the order of returned objects in array is not defined . What can be done to get the keys in the same order as that of the dictionary .
Thanks a lot in advance !!
So the question you were pointed to summarises the issue nicely, but the solutions offered could be a little bit too complex for your needs (if you didn't want / have the time to write a sub-class or your own data structure).
The quick and dirty alternative is simple to have an array that contains all the keys you want to access in the order you want to access them in. You can then simply match this array back to your dictionary to pull out values in the correct order.
I am trying to store metadata (basically a unique id) along with each cell of a table in a Word document. Currently, for the add-in I'm developing, I am querying the database, and building a table inside the Word document using the data that is retrieved.
I want to be able to save any of the user's edits to the document, and persist it back to the database. My initial thought was to store a unique id along with each cell in the table so that I would be able to tell which records to update. I would also like to store some sort of "isChanged" flag within each cell so that I could tell which cells were changed. I found that I could add the needed information into the "ID" property of the cell - however, that information was not retained if the user saved the document, closed it, and re-opened it. I then tried storing the data by adding a data to the "Fields" collection - but that did not work and threw a runtime error. Here is the code that I tried:
object t1 = Word.WdFieldType.wdFieldEmpty;
object val = "myValue: " + counter;
object preserveFormatting = true;
tbl.Cell(i, j).Range.Fields.Add(tbl.Cell(i, j).Range, ref t1, ref val, ref preserveFormatting);
This compiles fine, but throws this runtime error "This command is not available".
So, is this possible at all? Or am I headed in the wrong direction?
Thanks in advance.
Wound up using "ContentControls" to store the information I needed. I used the "Title" field to store the unique id, and the "tag" field to track whether the field had been changed or not. See this link for more info: http://blogs.technet.com/gray_knowlton/archive/2010/01/15/associating-data-with-content-controls.aspx
Since a "Word 2007 Document" is XML, you can add a namespace to the document then adore the elements with attributes from your namespace. Word should ignore your namespace when loading and saving. Moreover, you can add new elments to store any information (metadata) needed.
With that said, I have not used this technique with Word, but I have done it successfully using Excel 2003.
First thing to try, is create a bare "Word 2007 Document". In your case, add a simple two by two table. Open it with a text or XML editor and add your namespace, and adore an attribute and add an element. Open with Word make a change then save it. Open with editor and make sure your namespace attribute and element have not been changed.