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.
Related
I have a problem with a combobox in a form, which displays a "#Name?" error whenever I enter it to select a value.
I am creating a form in MS Access (specifically in Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010) that is a general user interface, meaning that the form itself is not linked to a RecordSet of any kind.
In that form, I create a Combobox, which I link to a "TblSubsystem" table. The table is very simple and designed like that:
ID (primary key, autonumber)
SysShortName, text
SysFullName, text
When I try to select a value in the dropdown list, the testbox of the combobox just displays "#Name?" (actually as soon as I select the combobox, even before I select any value)
The relevant (I think) parameters of the combobox are:
Control Source= "=[TblSubsytem]![ID]"
Row Source= TblSubsystem
Row Source Type= Table/Query
Bound Column= 2
Column Count= 2
Column Width= 0cm;1cm
(I am trying to select and show the short code, but to get the ID as a value for the combobox)
I have another form in the same project, in which a identical setup (also on TblSubsystem) works just fine, with the same values for these parameters, but that Form is linked to a RecordSet (another table). As far as I can tell it is the only difference, so I guess I must be missing something around that, which will seem obvious once I see it...
I have looked for variation of "Ms Access combobox #Name? Error", on stackoverflow and more broadly on the net, but in two days, I haven't seen any post answering my questions. Some are close, but refer to a much more complicated setup, while I think mine should have been pretty straight forward. Trying to adapt the solution to my case (includind recreating the combobox or decompiling the database) didn't help.
Here it was, long question, sorry about that, but hopefully precise enough for some of you guys to help on that. I thank you in advance for any help I can get on that.
#Name is a binding issue. Try setting your bound column to one, that way it only records your primary key and see if that works.
Edit: You've got the combobox referencing your table's primary key as your control source. Keep in mind the control source is the value that is being altered by the application user. Here are some key things to think about when working with comboboxes:
The control source should (typically) reference the foreign key of your table
The row source should reference the text that you want displayed in the box
Bound column should be set to 1, unless your application design requires you to update two fields simultaneously, which is an uncommon practice.
Set your column width to 0;1. This will hide the first field in your row source, which should be your foreign key
An example would look like this:
Control Source: EmployeeID --123456
Row Source: EmployeeID, EmployeeName --123456 | John Doe
A bound column set to 1 would record the value 1234556. A bound column set to 2 would record 123456, John Doe
I have a Crystal Report with a database command:
The command has a join clause that can be removed and read from a table in the database, because it represents static data. I add this table (called _System) to the database expert:
Now I edit the command to remove the join and columns that reference this table. Since the report fields that depended on these columns are no longer mapped, this causes the Map Fields window to appear:
...which does not have the new table in it. If I cancel out of this I am back to where I originally was. If I hit OK without mapping, all of the unmapped fields on the report are deleted (suffice it to say... I was not expecting this >:( )
I have tried adding links between the command and the new table, and refreshing report parameters, but these have had no effect.
One workaround is to manually replace every field in the report, but this is very labour intensive.
Here is the outline of the command before:
SELECT ACT.Account_Code, ACT.Company, ACT.FName, --etc
STM.CompanyName AS 'DLRName', STM.Address_1 AS 'DLRAddress', STM.City AS 'DlrCity' --etc
FROM Accounts AS ACT
JOIN _System AS STM ON 1 = 1
GROUP BY ACT.Account_Code, ACT.Company, ACT.FName, --etc
STM.CompanyName, STM.Address_1, STM.City --etc
And after:
SELECT ACT.Account_Code, ACT.Company, ACT.FName, --etc
FROM Accounts AS ACT
GROUP BY ACT.Account_Code, ACT.Company, ACT.FName --etc
I have removed the JOIN on the _System table, and all referenced columns.
It appears to not be recognizing your _system table as a new source.
I would :
1) leave your command object SQL unchanged & get the issue worked out with the _System table, then
2) ensure that you are able to establish a join between the command object fields and the _System table fields, and lastly
3) then remap the fields.
Step two I suspect is the source of the problem, as your join condition is "ON 1 = 1" which I assume to mean that you may not have a common key field in both tables.
Note that your original command SQL selects STM.Companyname AS 'DLRName'.
Hence, crystal now know of a field called DLRName, but does not know of a field called CompanyName, hence it cannot make the association between DLRName in the old source, and CompanyName in the new source...
Likewise with the rest of the fields that are being moved from the command object to an attached table. if no name match exists...Crystal cant make the connection. However...it would list all unmatched fields that are on the report, and all unused fields in the recognized data sources, and allow you to specify the matches yourself.
But it does not...which tells me that something has gone wrong with the attempt to attach/open the _System table. Hence..you need to get that worked out first, then make the field adjustments.
If this doesnt get you thru...then show some sample data so I can see how the two tables are relating ( ensure some examples exists where there is a row match from both tables ).
I had the same problem a while ago.
Unfortunately I can't find anything online that helps, or maybe wasn't looking hard enough. I just noticed that in my case, that particular field that isn't showing in the map field dialogue box has nvarchar(max) as its datatype (in view).
I tried to force the datatype with CAST(missingfieldname as nvarchar(20)) as missingfieldname (I did this in the view), and voila, it magically appears in the map field dialogue box.
It seems that field mapping dialogue box aren't showing fields with blob texts.
I know this question was asked 4 years ago. But hopefully, this comment could help future solution seekers regarding this absurd and weird problem. I just got lucky seeing what's unique about that particular missing field.
I have a specific question regarding the utilization of three tables in a database. Table 1 is called Personnel, and lists the names of the staff.
Tables 2 and 3 are identical, just listing two different types of overtime (long and short), along with the hours of the OT, Date of the OT, and Assigned to/Picked fields that are empty.
Here is the idea, I just dont know how to implement it. I would like to create a form for people to enter their OT picks, then automatically move to the next person on the list. So Rich Riphon, as an example, would be up first, would click on the link I would send, and a form would open up, showing his name, populated by the first table, and showing two drop down menus, populated from the Long OT and Short OT tables. He would select one from each (or None, which would be a option) and Submit it.
The form action would be to place his name in the Assigned field for the OT he picked, and place a Yes in the Picked field.
When the next person in the list opens the form, it has moved down to number 2 on the Personnel list, Cheryl Peterson, and shows her the remaining OT selections (excluding those that have a Yes in the Picked column).
Any suggestions or comments or better ways to do this would be appreciated.
First, I don't think ms access would be able to (easily) kick off the process based on a hyperlink. You may be able to do something by passing a macro name to a cmd prompt but it would take some mastery to get it working properly. Could you instead create a login form to get the current user? If you do that you don't really need to display the personnel list, just keep track of who has not yet responded to the OT request. Essentially at that point all you would need on your form is a listing of the available OT and a button that creates the assignment. Also it may be easier (and a better design) to only have one table for the OT listings and add a column for the type of overtime (long/short).
What if Cheryl isn't the 2nd person to get the form? Your concept goes out the window.
Instead, I would keep a table of all user names, and their security level. managers can see everything, individual users can only see their record. This would be done by using a query behind the OT Picks form, and either filtering by the current user or not filtering at all. I have done many of these types of "user control" databases and they all have worked well.
As for the actual OT tracking, I agree with Steve's post in that it should be done in one table This would be the preferred method of a concept referred to as "normalizing data". You really want to store as little data as possible to keep the size of your database down. As an example, your Login table would have the following fields:
UserID
FirstName
LastName
SecurityLevel
Address1
Address2
City
State
Phone
Etc... (whatever relevant info pertains to that person)
Your OT table would look like this:
UserID
OTDate
OTHours
OTType
Etc... (whatever else is relevant to OT)
You would then join those 2 tables on the UserID fields in both tables any time you needed to write a query to report OT hours or whatever.
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 quite the request. A developer created our database that has multiple Layouts with a relationship tree that is very messy. Had another developer come in, take a look at it, he said that it would be too time consuming and painful to deconstruct our system, consider creating a script for now so that you can work around it until it can be fixed. Here's the dilemma: I've got information on one page that is supposed to reference information on a number of different pages utilizing tabs and portals. However, all the information is linked to a username. This username is not static/serialized or what have you. Therefore, if the issue is not caught right away a great deal of information can be linked to this person's 'page'. If the name is incorrect and someone tries to alter the username even slightly, it breaks that relationship and starts a new one. The information does not disappear, but it is basically sitting in limbo somewhere until you change the name back to the original. I've actually tried exporting the information, changing the information that doesn't match, i.e. changing a name from Jon.Smith to John.Smith, and then importing the information to a new 'page' for that person with unsuccessful results. Which brings me to my question, is a script going to be able to fix this problem? Likewise, are there any suggestions to how to create this script? I apologize, but I have very little experience with DataBase management at all, and am not sure why this project fell upon me. Any help would be GREATLY appreciated.
Well, as a general answer, just about anything that a user can do in FileMaker (and by user, I mean non-developer, so activities such as defining the database structure, writing scripts, etc., are excluded) can be scripted. So if you're able to "solve" the problem by resetting a field's value, for example, then, yes, a script can do that.
Regarding your specific trouble, a script probably doesn't need to export the records, but could reset the values for the field within FileMaker. This could be done either by looping through the records that need to be changed or by using the Replace Field Contents script step. So a script could do something like this:
Go to Layout[MyLayout] // Go to a layout that is attached to the table you need to search.
Perform Find[Restore] // Restore a find that will show the records you need to change.
Replace Field Contents[Table::Field; "New Value"]
Offering more advice than this would require actually seeing the database and understanding more about your specific needs.
wchsTech4, you are in luck because your problem is easy to fix. You don't even need a script.
BACK UP YOUR FILE(S) FIRST. Then:
1) Create two new fields:
id (person table)
Options for id: Auto-enter serial number
person_id (the table related to person)
2) Generate serial numbers for the new id field in the person table.
Navigate to the person layout.
'Records' > 'Show all records'
Click in the id field and select 'Records' > 'Replace field contents.'
Choose 'Replace with serial numbers' and accept the defaults. Be sure to check the box to update your next serial number.
3) Place the serial numbers you just generated in the related table.
Navigate to the related layout.
'Records' > 'Show all records'
Click in the person_id field and select 'Records' > 'Replace field contents.'
Choose 'Specify' next to 'Replace with calculated results.'
In the drop down on the top left, select the related person table.
Double click the id field (your calculation should be person::id, with person replaced with the name of your table).
Click 'OK' and then 'Replace.'
4) Change the relationship.
Select 'File' > 'Manage' > 'Database.'
Navigate to the relationship tab.
Change the relationship from being based on name to id.
5) Test everything. Should work.
There is a chance that your related records are being created in such a manner that you also need to modify a script, website, or something else not mentioned here to have your fix work going forward. That is important to investigate.