FMPRO-L Archives

March 2010, Week 3

FMPRO-L@LISTSERV.DARTMOUTH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Barrie Phillips <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
FileMaker Pro Discussions <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:11:47 -0400
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1694 bytes) , text/html (3096 bytes)
Steve, thanks for knocking the blinders off! I don't know why I didn't  
see it, but I don't really need to use the concatenated field  
anyplace. I can instead use the 'person' ID number as the match field  
and determine 'current' status by inspection of the appropriate field  
to make sure I am looking only at current records. Auto-creation works  
fine now, and I don't have to put up with a kludgy fix to accomplish  
related record creation.

Thanks so much for the help.

Barrie

On Mar 14, 2010, at 6:00 PM, FMPRO-L automatic digest system wrote:

> Date:    Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:35:25 +0000
> From:    Steve Cassidy <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: FMPRO-L Digest - 12 Mar 2010 to 13 Mar 2010 (#2010-42)
>
> On Mar 14, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Barrie Phillips wrote:
>
>> Thanks Steve
>>
>> I'm typing into a text field. In this case the portal to the  
>> related =20=
>
>> table contains only
>> a text field, two date fields, and a check box that are visible.  
>> The =20=
>
>> 'person' ID number,
>> current record flag (yes/no) and the concatenation of the two (the  
>> =20
>> match field)
>> are hidden beneath the four entry fields.
>
> "Allow creation of related records" does not work if the match field  
> =20
> is a calculation. (Obvious if you consider the situation; in order  
> for =20=
>
> auto-creation to work, Filemaker has to set the match field =96 but  
> a =20=
>
> calculation cannot be set.)
>
> I'm not 100% certain, because I rarely use this functionality, but I  
> =20
> think you can get around the problem by using multiple (two in this  
> =20
> case) relational criteria =96 one matching the person ID and the  
> other =20=
>
> matching the flag =96 instead of the single calculated field.
>
> Steve=



ATOM RSS1 RSS2