I would like to use a parameter for the table name. I have an application that creates several new tables each month. I therefore need the table name to be sent into CR via a parameter. The fields for the tabkes are always identical. I can present a list (view) from the database to the end user that would display a user friendly name for the table, when the user selects the instance they want I then have the table name I want to report from.
I'm not sure if that is possible. Even if your tables have the same structure, the field names will ultimately be different. Let's say you have a {table1.field1} in your report. Now you want to run the report from table2 instead of table1. So your field now would have to become {table2.field1}. Does that make sense? I think a better approach might be to try stored procedures that will create the fields you need so the field names won't change.
Related
It is more of an annoyance rather than real issue: when in Crystal reports you change the data source to one with different name (and do all the linking old columns to new columns) all the table names in Field explorer and (obviously) in formulas are changed. But the Database expert still shows the old table/view name!
Let me show this on example: Lets say I change TABLE_1 with column EQUIPMENT to VIEW_1 with column UNIT. Via the datasource location I can do the substitution and link old column EQUIPMENT to new one - UNIT.
But when I check either Datasource location or database expert it will be still showing old TABLE_1 (if you check the columns in the link tab you will notice that the TABLE_1 has now column UNIT instead of EQUIPMENT).
This can be quite annoying and frankly bit dangerous, especially if you return to report after a longer while. Is there somewhere a setting that allows to autoupdate table names in the database expert?
When you create the report it will create tables and each table will be linked to a datasource table. So the report table will have a name and datasource , which might be the same. When you change the datasource the datasource of the table will be updated but the report table name will remain the same. Think about this name as an alias. It might differs from th datasource name if you use the same table multiple times
I don't think there is auto update option in crystal reports but one thing you can do is to use Verify Database option under Database tab whenever you update the tables.
You need to manually edit table names in Database expert, there's no automatic way (and like Lan already answered, it is generally not possible).
I'm new to Filemaker and need some advice on auto-populating tables.
Part 1:
I have TableA which includes many records with client information. I want a separate TableB which is identical to TableA except that it is "de-identified"; that is, it does not contain two of the fields, first name and last name.
I would like the two tables to interact such that if I add a new record to TableA, that same record (sans first and last name) appear automatically in TableB.
Part 2:
In addition to the above functionality, I would also like said functionality to be dependent on a specific field type from TableA. For example, I enter a new record, which has a "status" field set to "active," into tableA. I then want that record to be auto-popualted into TableB; however, if I add another record with a "status" of "inactive," I want that that record auto-populated into a TableC but not into TableB.
FileMaker can perform this with script triggers so long as every layout where TableA will be edited has a layout script trigger of OnRecordCommit connected to it. When the record is committed (which can happen in a number of ways), the attached script will run, which you can use to create the appropriate record in the appropriate table.
The script could create the record in a number of ways. If the primary keys for both records are the same, you could use lookups. You could export the record in TableA and then import it into the correct table. You could pass the field information as a parameter to the script. The best choice really depends on your needs.
Having said that, I would question the wisdom of this approach. It brings up a few questions that would seem to complicate matters. For example, what happens when the status changes? When a record in TableA is deleted? When fields in TableA are modified? Each of these contingencies (and others) will require thought and more complicated scripts.
So I would ask what problem you're really trying to solve. My best guess is that you are trying to keep the name information private from certain users. User accounts and privileges with dedicated layouts for each privilege can solve this without the need for duplicate tables. FileMaker privilege sets can be quite granular.
For example, you can specify that users with PrivilegeA can create records and view names, but PrivilegeB users can only view records if the status is "active" and the name fields are not available to them, while PrivilegeC users can view records if the status is "inactive" and the name fields are also not available to them.
I would definitely use filters and permissions on the "status field" to achieve this and not two mirroring tables. Unless the inactive information is drastically different, you would be complicated your solution and creating more possible pitfalls.
I am trying to work around a limitation that Filemaker 12 seems to have. In a value list that links to an ODBC attached SQL Server database, it doesn't display every piece of data. If there are 2 people with the same last name for example, it only displays the first person with that last name in the list. This is verified by the following in the Filemaker documentation (which I found after a lot of digging)
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.
Portals on the other hand will find all the related data, I just don't understand how do something with the data once I get it in the portal. I essentially thus wish to use a portal AS my drop-down value list, and then to use it as I would have a value list (which is then to act as the key to do the rest of the lookups on the page to fill out the invoice.
The major issue here (other than this maddening choice Filemaker seems to make) is that the external file I am pulling the data from is an ODBC mounted SQL Server file, so I can't do something easy like a calculated field which would give me last name & " " & first which would make almost every person unique. Filemaker won't let me do that because it says I can't do that with a field that is not indexed. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Assuming that we're starting with table MyTable and we're trying to get a ID from the People table for the selected person, which we'll call ID so that we can put it into MyTable::PersonID
Start by creating a new Table Occurrence of your People table and call it PeopleWhoCanBeSelected. If you want every person in the People table you can connect it to MyTable with the X relationship. If you want to show just a subset of the people you can build a different relationship.
Now, on a layout displaying records from MyTable you will make a portal showing records from the PeopleWhoCanBeSelected table.
In the portal put a button. When that button is pressed use the Set Field script step:
Set Field MyTable::PersonID to:
PeopleWhoCanBeSelected::ID
That should do it. You can make the button an invisible overlay on the entire portal record if you like, so that the user clicks on "the name" instead of "the button next to the name".
Now, if you want to pull additional data through to the MyTable record, you'll need to create a second Table Occurrence, called People with the relationship MyTable::PersonID = People::ID. Then you can get information on the specifically chosen person through that relationship.
I have a form with checkboxes and I need to know what the best way to submit them to the database is. I have the following table setup:
roles users user_roles
----- ----- ----------
id id user_id
role_id
I have a page where you can edit a user and assign them different roles via checkbox, then those checkboxes are saved in the user_roles table. Since editing a user's roles can involve either deleting rows or adding rows, this is how I currently handle it:
my $form_vals = (1=>1,2=>2); #submitted by user
my $db_vals = (3=>3); #gotten out of db
So I have these two hashes and I will compare the keys in $form_vals with the keys in $db_vals, then I see that I have two extra values that are not present in the database so I add them. And vice versa I find which values are no longer selected on the form by comparing the keys in $db_vals with the keys in $form_vals and then I delete those rows from the database. My question is, does anyone know of a better/easier way to do this? It's never really seemed obvious to me how to handle checkboxes and I'd like to know what best practice is. Thanks!
I wouldn't say that this has much to do with check boxes per se.
Basically what you have is two array of arrays, [ (uid, rid), (uid, rid) ], and you want to make array1 (the one in your database) a copy of array2 (the user input from the checkboxes). You could have a multi select or a comma separated string, and the case would be the same. You have a user id, and you want that user to have only the roles supplied.
Two ways to achieve that would be to either
Put both arrays in one hash each, do foreach key on the submitted, if not present in the database one do insert. Then do the same for the database hash and delete those not present in the submitted hash
Delete everything from the member_role table and insert what's submitted.
You really have to know everything in the database and everything submitted and check twice if you don't want to delete everything and do a fresh insert. You can of course make a function doing this for you, hiding the ugliness a bit. Think about how you'd do if it was just two arrays and no database was around.
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