According to the documentation, there is a Business Rule for Vendor and Employee that says
The name, first name, or last name field should not be blank.
Considering that NAME is required for create, the question is ¿Does this mean that ALL three properties have to have a value on Create?
We understood that, so we ran some tests. Creating a record with the three properties populated has no problem. The issue comes when we try so insert a null value for GivenName and FamilyName (first name and last name).
Quickbooks seems to take the NULL values as valid, and when inserting the record is not returning any error. The problem is that the record that was inserted never shows in the QBD UI, but is seems like it persists somewhere, because if we try to insert it again we get a "duplicate name" error.
Not sure if this is an issue or an expected behaviour... Any hints??
Thanks
QuickBooks for windows has some legacy behavior to be aware of. The First, Last and Name combines for a unique identifier accross Customers, Vendors and Employees. So you should fill in ALL the information you have. Any attempts to insert a record with the same F or L name, will fail if there is a Customer, Vendor or Employee with the same F & L.
Second, you mentioned that the record doesn't show in QuickBooks for Windows?
Did it sync successfully? Did you check the error state of the record you inserted?
Did you look at the sync logs to see if it failed to sync?
Lastly, you need to check all three objects for a user with the same F & L name if you are getting a duplicate error. Normally you would check to see if the customer/vendor/employee exists firsts so you can update the existing or determine if it is in fact a new record.
hope that helps
Jarred
Related
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 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.
Given that an ABRecordID can change between cloud syncs and under other circumstances out of my control, how can I maintain a long-term reference to an IOS address book record?
Apple provides the following guidance:
"The recommended way to keep a long-term reference to a particular record is to store the first and last name, or a hash of the first and last name, in addition to the identifier. When you look up a record by ID, compare the record’s name to your stored name. If they don’t match, use the stored name to find the record, and store the new ID for the record."
But I don't understand this guidance. If the address book can have duplicate names in it AND since users can modify the name in a record how could this advice work?
For example, if the user modifies the name of an address book record my routine will fail to find it by ABRecordID so if I think search by the name hash I stored couldn't I find a duplicate name instead of the new ABRecordID for that specific record I previously referenced?
In the end, what is the BEST way to get a long-term reference to an IOS AddressBook record? And if the above advice really does work what am I missing?
The most robust (yet not completely failsafe) approach would be to come up with a priority ranking of ABRecord fields and store as much from that list as is available, along with the ABRecordID, into your own (hashed) private record format. When retrieving a private record (or at another convenient time), you can verify that the private record matches the ABRecord and work through a series of fallback checks to ensure it's accurate.
Example priority ranking:
ABRecordID
FirstName
LastName
PhoneNumber
ZipCode
When retrieving a record you can first match the ABRecordID. If that returns no results, you can do a search for FirstName + LastName. You can then match those results against PhoneNumber... etc. In this way you could potentially distinguish between 2 Bob Smiths, as they may have different phone numbers (or one may not have a phone number). Of course, depending on how long your priority list is, the more robust this mechanism will be.
The last resort would be prompting the user to distinguish between 2 Bob Smiths with brand new ABRecordID's whose records are otherwise identical -- after all, such an inconvenient prompt would be far more friendly than allowing the User to contact the wrong Bob Smith (and as I said, would be a last resort).
This solution for AB may involve some synchronization issues, however.
This is a familiar problem for anyone who has worked with the iOS Media Player. Specifically MPMediaItems in the User's Music Library have a property MPMediaItemPropertyPersistentID which the docs describe as:
The value is not guaranteed to persist across a sync/unsync/sync cycle.
In other words, the PersistentID is not guaranteed to be persistent. Solutions for this include doing similar fallback checks on MediaItem properties.
The RecordID only get changed either on delete or reset, when this is done all the new record(s) will have new createdProperty and modifiedProperty as well.
While I am reading the address book for the first time, I will save all entries of the record along with RecordID in my database.
I will save the last time the contacts synced from contacts to my database(name it something: lastSyncedTime) and store it some where.
I am done with syncing the contacts for the first time, now do the following for syncing anytime in future.
while Iterating through all records,
check createdTime(kABPersonCreationDateProperty) vs lastSyncedTime. If createdTime > lastSyncedTime, store the recordID in a "newRecords" NSArray.
If !(step 1) then check modifiedDate(kABPersonModificationDateProperty) vs lastSyncedTime. If modifiedDate > lastSyncedTime, then store the recordID in a "modifiedRecords" NSArray.
if !(1) && !(2) store all recordID in a "unModifiedRecords".
Now I will read all the contacts from my local database,
I will delete all local database records that are not find either in "modifiedRecords" or in "unModifiedRecords".
I will update all "modifiedRecords" in the local database.
I will create new records for all records in "newRecords".
Update the lastSyncedTime accordingly.
The documentation is communicating to you that you can't count on ABRecordID as a permanent identifier.
Consider this scenario: The user has a record for "Bob Smith". The user then deletes his "Bob Smith" record and then imports his contacts from his computer (creating a new ID) through iTunes sync.
So if you want to keep a permanent reference to an existing contact, you can keep a reference to the name and id as a hint that it is the same record you used before- but there is no real permanent reference.
If you keep a permanent reference to an address book contact, you must always be ready to deal with the fact that it may not be the same contact you used before.
Refer :
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/ContactData/Conceptual/AddressBookProgrammingGuideforiPhone/Chapters/DirectInteraction.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40007744-CH6-SW2
Clearly tells you how to handle it.
I am obtaining a json array from a url and inserting data into a table. Since the contents of the url are subject to change, I want to make a second connection to a url and check for updates and insert new records in y table using sqlite3.
The issues that I face are:
1) My table doesn't have a primary key
2) The url lists the changes on the same day. Hence, if I run my app multiple times, when I insert values in my database, I get duplicate entries. I want to keep a check for the day duplicated entries that should be removed. The problem can be solved by adding a constraint, but since the url itself has duplicated values, I find it difficult.
The only way I can see you can do it if you have no primary key or something you can use that is unique to each record, is when you get your new data in you go through the new entries where for each one you check if the exact same data exists in the database already. If it doesn't then you add it, if it does then you skip over it.
You could even do something like create a unique key yourself for each entry which is a concatenation of each column of the table. That way you can quickly do the check for if the entry already exists in the database.
I see two possibilities depending on your setup:
You have a column setup as UNIQUE (this can be through a PRIMARY KEY or not). In this case, you can use the ON CONFLICT clause:
http://www.sqlite.org/lang_conflict.html
If you find this construct a little confusing, you can instead use "INSERT OR REPLACE" or "INSERT OR IGNORE" as described here:
http://www.sqlite.org/lang_insert.html
You do not have a column setup as UNIQUE. In this case, you will need to SELECT first to verify for duplicate data, and based on the result INSERT, UPDATE, or do nothing.
A more common & robust way to handle this is to associate a timestamp with each data item on the server. When your app interrogates the server it provides the timestamp corresponding to the last time it synced. The server then queries its database and returns all values that are timestamped later than the timestamp provided by the app. Then it also returns a new timestamp value for the app to store, to use on the next sync.
In many of my apps, it requires associating some data with a contact in addressbook. What I used to do is save the record id of an ABPerson and use that id to pull information upon each app launch. However, more and more I find that this approach is wrong because many times a user will use a service like mobileme where the addressbook is wiped and resynced. This causes the record id to change and all associations are lost. The user will have to go through each one and re-link them.
What is a better approach to holding a robust pointer to addressbook entries?
You should store three values: the record ID, the first name, and the last name.
1) In the case that the record ID hasn't changed, you're golden - just use that to locate the proper record.
2) If ABAddressBookGetPersonWithRecordID() does not locate a record for your stored record ID (it returns NULL), then you'll need to search the person records for a match based on the first and last name. You can drop down to using ABAddressBookCopyPeopleWithName() potentially or write your own locating code if you already have an array with all the person records in-memory. Locating the new record is up to you. Once to locate the new record, you can update your data storage with the new record ID.
Ultimately, you end up storing the record ID to use directly incase it doesn't change (if you're lucky) plus storing some keys from the address book entry that are unlikely to change. The name of the person or organization associated with an address book entry is most likely to change. You should, of course, account for the case where you may not find a record with the stored record ID or by searching for the name. This could trivially mean that the record was deleted, or it could mean that the record was renamed. You should handle that case whichever way you decide is best for your specific application.
I know this was last year, however, I thought I might suggest a method I use. The first time I ask the user to pick a contact (in order to associate certain of my app's private data with it) I then grab the record, create my own internal record id (the initials of the app name and a sequence number usually) modify the contact by adding a new ABRelatedName (type of "pref" name of "Other") value of my own internal record id. It looks like this in the .vcf
item3.X-ABRELATEDNAMES;type=pref:BZA101
item3.X-ABLabel:_$!<Other>!$_
That way, I can simply reference that record id when i add more data about the user such as the last time the app user contacted them, etc. Seems to work for me.
Hope that helps someone.
If the address book is indeed being completely wiped and re-loaded, and the only part that doesn't change is the display name, then storing the display name as the link seems like the only option.