I am receiving a syntax error in a form that I have created over a query. I created the form to restrict access to changing records. While trying to set filters on the form, I receive syntax errors for all attributes I try to filter on. I believe this has something to do with the lack of () around the inner join within the query code, but what is odd to me is that I can filter the query with no problem. Below is the query code:
SELECT CUSTOMER.[Product Number], SALESPERSON.[Salesperson Number],
SALESPERSON.[Salesperson Name], SALESPERSON.[Email Address]
FROM SALESPERSON INNER JOIN CUSTOMER ON
SALESPERSON.[Salesperson Number] = CUSTOMER.[Salesperson Number];
Any ideas why only the form would generate the syntax error, or how to fix this?
I was able to quickly fix it by going into Design View of the Form and putting [] around any field names that had spaces. I am now able to use the built in filters without the annoying popup about syntax problems.
I had this same problem.
As Dedren says, the problem is not the query, but the form object's control source. Put [] around each objects Control Source. eg: Contol Source: [Product number], Control Source: Salesperson.[Salesperson number], etc.
Makita recomends going to the original table that you are referencing in your query and rename the field so that there are no spaces eg: SalesPersonNumber, ProductNumber, etc. This will solve many future problems as well. Best of Luck!
Try making the field names legal by removing spaces. It's a long shot but it has actually helped me before.
No, no, no.
These answers are all wrong. There is a fundamental absence of knowledge in your brain that I'm going to remedy right now.
Your major issue here is your naming scheme. It's verbose, contains undesirable characters, and is horribly inconsistent.
First: A table that is called Salesperson does not need to have each field in the table called Salesperson.Salesperson number, Salesperson.Salesperson email. You're already in the table Salesperson. Everything in this table relates to Salesperson. You don't have to keep saying it.
Instead use ID, Email. Don't use Number because that's probably a reserved word. Do you really endeavour to type [] around every field name for the lifespan of your database?
Primary keys on a table called Student can either be ID or StudentID but be consistent. Foreign keys should only be named by the table it points to followed by ID. For example: Student.ID and Appointment.StudentID. ID is always capitalized. I don't care if your IDE tells you not to because everywhere but your IDE will be ID. Even Access likes ID.
Second: Name all your fields without spaces or special characters and keep them as short as possible and if they conflict with a reserved word, find another word.
Instead of: phone number use PhoneNumber or even better, simply, Phone. If you choose what time user made the withdrawal, you're going to have to type that in every single time.
Third: And this one is the most important one: Always be consistent in whatever naming scheme you choose. You should be able to say, "I need the postal code from that table; its name is going to be PostalCode." You should know that without even having to look it up because you were consistent in your naming convention.
Recap: Terse, not verbose. Keep names short with no spaces, don't repeat the table name, don't use reserved words, and capitalize each word. Above all, be consistent.
I hope you take my advice. This is the right way to do it. My answer is the right one. You should be extremely pedantic with your naming scheme to the point of absolute obsession for the rest of your lives on this planet.
NOTE:You actually have to change the field name in the design view of the table and in the query.
Put [] around any field names that had spaces (as Dreden says) and save your query, close it and reopen it.
Using Access 2016, I still had the error message on new queries after I added [] around any field names... until the Query was saved.
Once the Query is saved (and visible in the Objects' List), closed and reopened, the error message disappears. This seems to be a bug from Access.
I did quickly fix it by going into "Design View" of the main Table of same Form and putting underline (_) between any field names that had spaces. I am now able to use the built in filters without the annoying popup about syntax problems.
Extra ( ) brackets may create problems in else if flow. This also creates Syntax error (missing operator) in query expression.
I had this on a form where the Recordsource is dynamic.
The Sql was fine, answer is to trap the error!
Private Sub Form_Error(DataErr As Integer, Response As Integer)
' Debug.Print DataErr
If DataErr = 3075 Then
Response = acDataErrContinue
End If
End Sub
Related
I have a form based on a multiple-tables query. As some fields from different tables have the same names, I must add the corresponding table's name. However, there are hyphens in the tables' names as well as in the fields' names (both inherited from foreign Excel tables).
In VBA there is no problem: [Table-1.Field-1] always works well (also in SQL queries). However, when I write this in drafting mode as data source into the form, Access "thinks" this would be wrong and replaces it automatically with [[Table-1].[Field-1]] - with the result that the form then displays the error #Name?. I tried to replace [] by quotes but without any success.
Note that there is no error when only the table or only the field has a hyphen: both MyTable.[Field-1] and [Table-1].Myfield are accepted by the form.
The correct syntax should be:
[Table-1].[Field-1]
Or, using bang notation:
[Table-1]![Field-1]
Meanwhile I found not a true answer, but nevertheless a quite satisfactory workaround by adding following calculated field into the query:
MyWorkAround: [Table-1.Field-1]
Then I can simply refer to [MyWorkAround] in the corresponding form's field to avoid the form's bug. But this isn't really very elegant !
Note that I always use [ … ] around fields, even where not necessary. This practice helps avoiding a lot of errors.
I have a table in a word document that has three colums and all fields are mailmerge fields from an external IT system.
There are three columns displaying the fields:
Charge Description
Charge Value (£)
Eiligible? (yes/no)
I am trying to create a field that adds up all eligibale charges so that only charge values that show a "yes" in the eligigble field are included. Does anyone know if this is possible? I have tried creating a formula but can't get it to work. Also, I would assume at some point an if statment is required so that it only includes the eligible charge.
Has anyone done anything similar before and if so, would they mind sharing how it was achieved?
Many thanks
You can do some things with expression fields (created in Word with CTRL-F9). This will look like {} and you can insert the expression. eg {{MERGFIELD charge} + {MERGEFIELD charge2}}. Since however you want to check multiple values and then create an expression, its probably easier to use a macro. The macro would contain your logic, then set the fields in the document accordingly.
Here are two external links since I can't reproduce a useful amount the content here because it's a verbose answer to a potentially deep question:
Expression Fields
Merge fields
I hope that helps.
I administer a simple Filemaker Pro 12 database for a company. The current project we are working on requires us to italicize proper names. For example, If the database was movie database I would have the following caption:
Wendy,
Peter Pan
At the moment all captions like these are stored in one field, I would normally have two fields to separate the proper name from the character name, but doing so at this point would be very time consuming. I would like to make a script the italicizes the property names in this field, by looping through an array of proper names, and when a match is found it italicizes that name. This would be extremely useful, normally I could do this easily with another language, but Filemakers scripting language is foreign to me. This is simple in other languages using a foreach loop with a string array. Is there a simple solution someone can point me in the direction of.
You could probably loop through the list of proper names (where is it, and in what form?) and set the field to a calculation using:
Substitute ( field ; searchString ; TextStyleAdd ( searchString ; italic ) )
where searchString is the current value of the inner loop. The outer loop is, of course, looping through all found records. Hard to be more specific with so few details.
That said, IMHO it would take no more time and effort to fix the real problem here once and for all, i.e. separate the two facts into two individual fields.
Note also that there is an assumption here that the proper names match only themselves; for example, "Peter Pan, Peter Pan" would become "Peter Pan, Peter Pan" using the above method.
I have a drop down list of subjects. Two particular subjects are Mathematics and Additional Mathematics. When I choose Mathematics from the drop down list, records from Additional Mathematics and Mathematics are both displayed. Worse is that records from Additional Mathematics are shown first. Many colleagues made mistakes because of this.
How do I make the drop down list such that when clicked, the exact terms are used instead?
This is a problem that is not necessarily unique to FileMaker. You are searching for a name that is imprecise because it is a match for multiple names. Rather instead you might want to search for a unique key whose subject name is 'Mathematics' as displayed in your drop down. It is the use of that unique key that allows you to perform a precise search, even when the name of one subject is a partial or complete match for another.
This solution requires you to add a unique serial number which is, in your case, to alter the Subjects table and add a field called 'idnumber' or similar. The field type should be Number, and the options should include Auto-Enter-Serial number-Generate and On creation-increment by 1. The trick here lies in making sure no two subjects have the same 'idnumber' even when you aren't paying attention, so set the next value to something greater than the number of subjects that already exist. Then from another layout assign each existing subject a unique idnumber, noting that if there are a great many subjects you could script that step.
I should mention that many recommend a best practice of never changing a production layout, but rather to duplicate the layout and make the required changes to the duplicate. This minimizes the effects of testing your changes etc.
Finally, change your layout in inspector such that the drop down list shows Use values from field: 'idnumber'. Select Also display values from second field: 'Subject' and Show values only from second field. Now your drop down is the same clean selection as before. The field will not look correct yet because it will show a number. To make it look correct you can insert another field, selecting 'Subject'. Place that field over top of the 'idnumber' and send 'idnumber' to the back. Fill the 'Subject' field with the correct background solid color instead of none, and enjoy your new precision search capability! The entire process is handled server side so it should not matter that client access is IWP.
If you're using the selection to do a find, put an "==" before the text you're searching on. This will tell FileMaker to do an exact field contents search, instead of a "contains" search.
I need to redact proper names from text fields in SQL Server. Let's say I have the following table:
PersonTable
FirstName
LastName
Notes
I could do this:
UPDATE PersonTable
SET Notes = REPLACE(REPLACE(Notes, FirstName, 'REDACTED'), LastName, 'REDACTED')
That should work fine for the exact match condition, but what if someone has misspelled first or last name in the Notes field, or worse yet, used a nick-name like Jim?
I think Full Text searching using Contains is good for this sort of thing where the deviation is meaning or derivation-based, but will it work for names? Even if it worked for finding rows where Notes contained a name, I don't think it works with the Replace scenario.
I have also considered SOUNDEX, but I am also not seeing how to do this using Replace for a text field. The only way I can see using Soundex or something like that would be to split the text field into words and do a comparison on each word. I have to do this on many text fields in very heavily populated tables, so I'm not excited about doing that if there's a better way.
Does anyone have experience doing something like this?
Thanks