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.
Recently end users have started to notice explicit simple quotes couples ('') on empty fields.
I have no idea what would have caused that, and was not yet in my company at the time it began to appear.
By looking in the database, I saw a lot of text values filled ''...
...as well as others just kept empty, in the same columns:
I tried to access by query to these values (by trying several syntax)...
...but found no result(with each one of them):
These fields are not null but I cannot seem to access them, and it is quite a big deal if I want to up date them to an empty value (an actual '').
My main goal is to get rid of all the '' appearances to end up having only wether fields filled by users or empty ones. My side goal is to understand better how this happened and how to prevent it in the first place.
In fact they are empty strings and you can find them with this query:
select *
from segments
where se_comments = '';
The second image in the question shows three empty strings, three nulls and two empty strings.
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
I have an SDO supplying data to a read-only browser. The SDO query joins several tables and has calculated fields as well as natural data fields.
The users now want a search facility so the browser will only show rows where the search word appears in ANY of the text fields.
For example they want to see rows where
customer.name matches "*bob*" OR
customer.address1 matches "*bob*" OR
product.description matches "*bob*" OR
calc_field_1 matches "*bob*" OR
calc_field_2 matches "*bob*" OR ...
Ideally the answer will filter the SDO output as it is created - but I am also happy to filter the data on the way to the smartbrowser or in the smartbrowser.
The business problem you're trying to solve in fraught with performance issues if you implement it as written. I'd suggest
adding another character column to the table or db,
putting all the words from the other columns in it,
applying a word-index to the new column,
doing a search on that column, and then linking back to the source tables.
It'll be much faster and easier to use.
I used a very simple solution in the end. Users can enter a string they are looking for. If the string is in a cell in the browser then the cell is highlighted in yellow.
Before this the users had to scroll up and down trying to spot the cells of interest in hundreds of rows. We did not have the time or budget for anything fancier.
The important bit of code in the smartbrowser is like this...
on row-display of br_table in frame f-main
do:
if rowObject.field1 matches "*BOB*" then
rowObject.field1:BGCOLOR in browse br_table = 14.
if rowObject.field2 matches "*BOB*" then
rowObject.field2:BGCOLOR in browse br_table = 14.
if rowObject.field3 matches "*BOB*" then
rowObject.field3:BGCOLOR in browse br_table = 14.
... etc ...
it's not hard-coded to only look for Bob - but you should get the idea.
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