Good day,
In my Ms Access 2010 Form, I have 4 textboxes, namely GrossAmt, WTax1, WTax2, and NetAmt.
GrossAmt, WTax1, and WTax2 are bounded. And so, their values are stored in the table.
NetAmt is unbounded as I have a function running. In its Control Source I have this:
=[GrossAmount]-([WTax1]+[WTax2]).
which is running properly. My problem is, how can I save the value(answer) in the table?
I have tried adding another textbox (named NetAmount) which is bounded to the table and was supposed to copy the values from the unbounded textbox. I have tried putting Me.NetAmount = Me.NetAmt in the "After Update" Event in Property but its not saving.
What should I do, I don't have any clue on what to do anymore. Thank you for your help.
with the equals sign, the value is not stored anywhere, it is calculated on the fly.
If GrosssAmount, WTax1 & WTax2 are stored in the database you never need to store that data, instead you can run the calculation based on the other three. In fact, I would recommend that you do it this way, unless there is a particular need to retrieve a historic net amount.
If you wanted to save the data to the database, you're going to have to use code on Update.
the easiest would be to write a function, something like
Private Function saveNetAmount()
Me.[NetAmount] = [GrossAmount]-([WTax1]+[WTax2])
End Function
and then add that into the AfterUpdate or OnChange event for the Gross Amount, WTax1 and WTax2 text boxes.
Something like:
Private Sub GrossAmt_AfterUpdate()
Call saveNetAmount
End Sub
Related
I have designed a simple database to keep track of company contacts. Now, I am building a form to allow employees to add contacts to the database.
On the form itself, I have all the columns except the primary key (contactID) tied to a text box. I would like the contactID value to be (the total number of entered contacts + 1) when the Add button is clicked. Basically, the first contact entered will have a contactID of 1 (0 + 1 = 1). Maybe the COUNT command factors in?
So, I am looking for assistance with what code I should place in the .Click event. Perhaps it would help to know how similar FoxPro is to SQL.
Thanks
The method you recommend for assigning ContactIDs is not a good idea. If two people are using the application at the same time, they could each create a record with the same ContactID.
My recommendation is that you use VFP's AutoIncrementing Integer capability. That is, set the relevant column to be Integer (AutoInc) in the Table Designer. Then, each new row gets the next available value, but you don't have to do any work to make it happen.
There are various ways to do this. Probably the simplest is to attempt to lock the table with flock() when saving, and if successful do:
calc max id_field to lnMax
Then when inserting your new record use lnMax+1 as the id_field value. Don't forget to
unlock all
... after saving. You'll want to ensure that 'id_field' has an index tag on it, and that you handle the case where someone else might have the table locked.
You can also do it more 'automagically' with a stored procedure.
I have this continuous form "Results" built on a "Search" query in Microsoft Access and I want to show a hidden text field "Number" (with its Visible property initially set to False) depending on the value of one query result written in a "Type" combo box. My code is currently as follows:
Private Sub Form_Load()
If Me.Type="Reclamation" Then
Me.Number.Visible=True
Else: Me.Number.Visible=False
End If
End Sub
This does not seem to work, however the code does fine when triggered by a change event. Adding, changing and deleting records are also disabled in "Results".
Should I run code from a macro, on the query or try another event (I've tried many events though with no success)?
Thanks for the help, and sorry for the noob question!
Continuous Forms behave differently than what you think. It cannot work with UnBound Controls. If the control Number is bound it will take effect on only the Record that has foucs. Using Form Current combined with Load should/might work, but again it will not be the best solution. Because it will be applied to all other records in the SubForm.
Example of what I mean is, if the form has three records. First Record has Type (a terrible field/control name) "Reclamation" then the "current" record's Number (again a very bad field/control name) will be hidden along with all the other record's Number, even if they have other Type's in their record.
I would suggest you to go with Single Form.
I've been recruited to work on a form for tracking specimens. Each specimen is associated with a subject; each specimen also has a particular slot in a 9 x 9 storage box. For ease of data entry, I think it would be best if the Access form mirrored the box itself (and the paper forms that will be used to enter data into Access): nine columns by nine rows, with each element consisting basically of a text box for the specimen ID. This is basically how I'd like it to look:
So the data entry person would essentially type in the box number and specimen IDs, then click "Create Records" to pop all of those records into existence (you can see some other stuff going on here, but that's not really important right now). I'm not really sure about the best way to code this, however. Right now, the best process I can think of is to: 1) run an insert query to create the box if it doesn't exist, 2) run an insert query to create the subject (person), if it doesn't exist, and 3) run an insert query for each specimen, hard-coding in its row and column (e.g. box_col = 'A', box_row = '1').
Note: the subject ID and specimen ID would both be parsed out of the ID field - it's goofy, not my idea, but that's how it's set up. I can handle that, though.
This is a certainly a kludge, but I'm not sure what else to do and most of what I've googled up hasn't been pertinent to multiple-record creation from a single form. Is there a better way to do this? Should I simply abandon the idea and go with a more traditional bound subform approach?
This could be all done in a sub form - however, I assume for simplicity (less clicks, easier user experience, and intuition) you've designed it so that the end user sees everything he /she need to enter. There is nothing wrong with doing it this way. Once the data is all entered just have a button on the form that does the multiple inserts at once.
Start at 1 and include 9 iterations each time issuing a new INSERT statement.
Once the statement has been completed I would personally put a little check mark next to each row so that if an insert succeded it would check it true, else false. You could be nifty and use a green image / red image. After it has completed the process all fields should be cleared allowing additional entry.
I don't see an issue with what you have.
FRIG. I just lost ten minutes of typing. This is why I don't care for web based forms. Although to be fair this is the first time this has happened on StackOverflow.
Do you really need to view the data later in the same format as it's entered. If they can just view regular subforms that's at least half the work as you no longer need to do updates of this form.
Also note that there is a lifetime amaximum of 768, if I recall correctly, controls per form. 9 x 9 x 2 is 162 so you'll be ok there. However if you decide to delete and recreate lots of cotrols you could be in trouble. If you do hit that limit I think saving the form under a separate name should reset the counter.
Note you can use the following construct to refer to controls and make life easier.
Me.Controls("abc" & Row & column)
For example in the After Update of the type control you could use
call InsertRecords(3, "B")
sub InsertRecords(row as integer, Column as string)
....
cboTypeValue = Me.Controls("cboTypeID" & Row & Column)
....
This could be used as some kind of native access controls only grid.
If someone would post an example of how to create custom unbound subform with row for each unbound record and a code to loop and save it to the tables would be just great.
There wouldn't be as much controls and it wouldn't have any limits by the numbers of fields on form.
I have a FileMaker script which calculates a value. I have 1 record from table A from which a relation points to n records of table B. What is the best way to set B::Field to this value for each of these n related records?
Doing Set Field [B::Field; $Value] will only set the value of the first of the n related records. What works however is the following:
Go to Related Record [Show only related records; From table: "B"; Using layout: "B_layout" (B)]
Loop
Set Field [B::Field; $Value]
Go To Record/Request/Page [Next; Exit after last]
End Loop
Go to Layout [original layout]
Is there a better way to accomplish this? I dislike the fact that in order to set some value (model) programmatically (controller), I have to create a layout (view) and switch to it, even though the user is not supposed to notice anything like a changing view.
FileMaker always was primarily an end-user tool, so all its scripts are more like macros that repeat user actions. It nowhere near as flexible as programmer-oriented environments. To go to another layout is, actually, a standard method to manipulate related values. You would have to do this anyway if you, say, want to duplicate a related record or print a report.
So:
Your script is quite good, except that you can use the Replace Field Contents script step. Also add Freeze Window script step in the beginning; it will prevent the screen from updating.
If you have a portal to the related table, you may loop over portal rows.
FileMaker plug-in API can execute SQL and there are some plug-ins that expose this functionality. So if you really want, this is also an option.
I myself would prefer the first variant.
Loop through a Portal of Related Records
Looping through a portal that has the related records and setting the field has a couple of advantages over either Replace or Go To Record, Set Field Loop.
You don't have to leave the layout. The portal can be hidden or place off screen if it isn't already on the layout.
You can do it transactionally. IE you can make sure that either all the records get edited or none of them do. This is important since in a multi-user networked solution, records may not always be editable. Neither replace or looping through the records without a portal is transaction safe.
Here is some info on FileMaker transactions.
You can loop through a portal using Go To Portal Row. Like so:
Go To Portal Row [First]
Loop
Set Field [B::Field; $Value]
Go To Portal Row [Next; Exit after last]
End Loop
It depends on what you're using the value for. If you need to hard wire a certain field, then it doesn't sound like you've got a very normalised data structure. The simplest way would be a calculation in TableB instead of a stored field, or if this is something that is stored, could it be a lookup field instead that is set on record creation?
What is the field in TableB being used for and how?
I'm trying to copy some field values to a duplicate database. One record at a time. This is used for history and so I can delete some records in the original database to keep it fast.
I don't want to manually save the values in a variable because there are hundreds of fields. So I want to go to the first field, save the field name and value and then go over to the other database and save the data. Then run a 'Go to Next Field' and loop through all the fields.
This works perfectly, but here is the problem: When a field is a calculation you cannot tab into it and therefore 'Go to Next Field' doesn't work. It skips it.
I though of doing a 'Go to Object' but then I need to name all the objects and I can't find a script to name objects.
Can anyone out there think of a solution?
Thanks!
This is one of those problems where I always found it easier to do an export/import.
Export all the data you want from the one database, and then import it into the other database. All you need to do is:
Manually specify which fields you want to copy
Map the data from the export to the right fields in the new database/table
You can even write a script to do these things for you.
There are several ways to achieve this.
To make a "history file", I have found there are several cases out there, so lets take a look.
CASE ONE
Single file I just want to "keep" a very large file with historical data, because I need to erease all data in my Main file.
In this case, you should create a "clone" table (in the same file ore in other file, is the same). Then change any calculation field to the type of the calculation result (number, text, date, an so on...). Remove any "auto entered value or calculation from any field, like auto number, auto creation date, etc..). You will have a "Plain Table" with no calculations or auto entered data.
Then add a field to control duplicate data. If you have lets say an invoice number (unique) for each record, you can do this to achieve this task. But if you do not have a unique field that identifies the record as unique, then you have to create one...
To create such a field, I recommed to add a new field on the clone table and set as an aunto entered calculation and make a field combination that is unique... somthing like this: invoiceNumber & "-" & lineNumber & "-" " & date.
On the clone table make shure that validation is set up for "always", and no empty values allowed and that this value is unique.
Once you setup the clone table... then you can import your records, making sure that the auto enty option is on. Yo can do it as many times as you like, new records will be added and no duplicates.
If you want, can make a Script to do the move to historical table all the current records before deleting them.
NOTE:
This technique works fine when the data you try to keep do not have changes over time. This means, once the record is created is has no changes.
CASE TWO
A historical table must be created but some fields are updated.
In the beginnig I thougth a historical data, never changes. In some cases I found this is not the case, like the case I want to track historical invoices but at the same time, keep track if they are paid or not...
In this case you may use the same technique above, but instead of importing data... you must update data based on the "unique" fields that identifiy the record.
Hope this technique helps
FileMaker's FieldNames() function, along with GetField() can give you a list of field names and then their values