I would like to create a team query for our TFS users that shows all task items where the sum of the [hours remaining] and [hours completed] fields exceed the [original estimate] value.
Now Whilst I can add a clause to the WIQL that compares one field to the value of ONE other field (Which I had to ask you kind folks in stack exchange how to do in How do I write a TFS 2010 Work Item query clause whose value is a field value? which was answered by PVitt with admirable politeness - Since I had simply failed to read the "operator" drop down properly!)
I am struggling to find a way of querying the sum of two fields.
For example:
This query clause works;
And Completed Work > [Field] Remaining Work
What I really want is something along the lines of;
And Completed Work > [Field] Remaining Work+Original Estimate
The problem is either this cannot be done, or my wild guesses as to the correct syntax for summing two field values have all been wrong.
Specifying two filenames separated with a + just yields a TF51005 error
Similarly guessing at a "macro" like Sum(Remaining Work+Original Estimate) or Sum(Remaining Work,Original Estimate) results in the same.
So is this even possible?
if it is how would I go about this?
What you want is not possible. Your options are to use:
1) the object model to write C# code that iterates over the work items from a query and do the math yourself
2) run the query in excel and do the calculations and filter in excel
3) use ssrs to create a report that does the math for you
If you think this is important, you can always post your suggestion on user voice: https://visualstudio.uservoice.com
Add a new hidden field to store the sum, install TFS Aggregator and set it up to update the hidden field when the workitem is updated.
Then perform your queries off the new field.
There may be a couple of minutes delay between updating the sum having the new value.
<AggregatorItem operationType="Numeric" operation="Sum" linkType="Self" workItemType="Task">
<TargetItem name="Total Work"/>
<SourceItem name="Remaining Work"/>
<SourceItem name="Original Estimate"/>
</AggregatorItem>
If you're soley focused on the results/don't mind a (short) trip outside TFS, what I do is run the TFS query that produces the individual results I need, then just select all/copy/paste the results grid into Excel. There you'll have access to all Excel's suming and auto (col headers)/advanced filtering capabilities. You can define criteria that reference other cells using this method as well. Can also use the "If()" fcn to (in/ex)clude cell values in straight formulas. W/ some Excel fancy footwork, should even be able to preserve the summing fcns btw runs/pastes.
Related
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.
My crystal report pulls data about books, including an identifier (isbn, issn order number etc.), author, and publisher.
The ID field stores multiple ways to identify the book. The report displays any of the identifiers for that record. If one book has two identifiers; issn and order number, the report currently displays one apparently at random.
How can I make it prioritise which type to use based on a preset order? I figured some sort of filter on the field could work, but I haven't figured out how. I can't edit the table, but I can use SQL within the report.
If all the different types of ID are stored in a single field, your best bet is to use a SQL Command inside your report to separate them into multiple virtual fields.
Go to Database Fields / Database Expert, expand the connection you want to use, and pick Add Command. From here you can write a custom SQL statement to grab the information you're currently using, and at the same time separate the ID field into multiple different fields (as far as the report will be concerned, anyway. The table will stay unchanged.)
The trick is to figure out how to write your command to do the separation. We don't know what your data looks like, so you're on your own from here.
Based on the very little information that you have provided and if i was to make a guess.I suggest you make use of the formula field in your report and then use something like this to accomplish your goal.
IF ISNULL{first_priority_field_name} OR {first_priority_field_name} = '' THEN
{second_priority_field_name}
ELSE
{first_priority_field_name}
Use nested IF statement in case there are more than 2 identifier fields.
Background Info
C#
MS MVC 4
Sql Azure
Linq - Identities
Problem at hand:
Selecting records in an Items table where zip code is within a certain range of miles.
Items Table
id (PK)
Title
Body
ZipCode (Int)
Summary of Progress:
I have a class which uses the 2013 US Gazatteer zip code and tabulation areas to gather zip codes and assess distances between zip codes. It is basically a .csv/.txt file that I open into a stream and convert to POCOs in order to process distances. That much of the equation is working fine; however, selecting a list of Items from an Items table based on this list of zip codes is where I'm not sure what to do.
Scenario
User A wants to search for items within a 25 miles radius of area code 46324.
User A hits search and in the background my class returns a list of 124 zip codes within a 25 mile radius.
Question: What is the best way (performance wise) to retrieve items in my Item table using this list of zipcodes?
Possible Solutions
I thought about creating a dynamic query using the tsql in keyword within my where clause and simply supplying this list as the where parameters. This does not seem to be a very performance oriented way of doing this; however, considering my current architecture I do not see any other way.
I also thought about incorporating a sort of paging functionality that will only take the first 5 zip codes to return results followed by the next 5 and so on and so on. This will involve more work but it definitely would seem to be a better performance choice.
Any ideas?
I stumbled across your question purely by chance searching for something else, and also I see it's quite old, but I thought I'd give you a comment none the less:
What I would do in this case is actually allow the database to do the search and the C# to do the calcs. You have a class in C# which calculates the distances? Then why not save the distance from each zip code to each zip code in a "lookup table" in sql.
Doing it this way makes sure that the data is calculated once but you let the sql find the right data for you.
ie:
Create a table with from_zip, to_zip, distance fields
Calculate and populate table once at the beginning
Query by saying "select * from zip_lookup where zip_from = bla and distance between 0 and 100" or something like that
I have an SSRS 2008 R2 report that uses this expression in a table:
=Lookup(Fields!DataSet1Date.Value, Fields!DataSet2Date.Value, Fields!DataSet2Price.Value, "DataSet2")
I have 2 data sets and am using the Lookup function to get data from one dataset based on the date in another dataset.
My problem is that this works on machines that I have tried it on, but others are getting errors like this:
Error 1 [rsFieldReference] The Value expression for the text box ‘Col_D2Price’ refers to the field ‘DataSet2Date’. Report item expressions can only refer to fields within the current dataset scope or, if inside an aggregate, the specified dataset scope.
Error 2 [rsFieldReference] The Value expression for the text box ‘Col_D2Price’ refers to the field ‘DataSet2Price’. Report item expressions can only refer to fields within the current dataset scope or, if inside an aggregate, the specified dataset scope.
What other things can we do to troubleshoot this issue? We are all using the same 2008R2 version.
I oftern get this "phantom" error when using the LookUp function. I call it phantom as no where can I find a reason, but there you have the error pop up.
The only way to get around it in my cases is to use the secondary function LookUpSet.
Hope I've helped.
Edit:
Furthermore you've intrigue me so I've done some research:
The lookup function is only for 1-to-1 relationship.
The loopupset funcrion is for 1-to-many relationship.
The multilookup function is for many 1-to-1 relationships, i.e. an array of single values where there is only 1 value in the second dataset. Not relevant but quite interesting.
Also I came across a potential fix. This being on the new machines try and open the datasets in the report and refresh all fields in the dialog box. For some reason this may relink the fields to this expression. Go figure...Blockquote
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?