FMP7: m:n relationships

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Martin Trautmann - 30 Mar 2004 14:42 GMT

Hi all,

I just gave FMP7 a first try.

Where have the m:n relationships gone?

I feel, in FMP3 /FMP4 the behavior was:

replace(relationship::x, relationship::x & "<CR>xyz")

...added xyz to the first matching record from every matching instance.
(1:1 or m:1)

FMP6 would add this to every other matching record (m:1 or m:n).

However, FMP7 seems to be different about the multiline indexing:

record a, field x: 1<cr>2 does not relate to every other 1 OR 2 any
longer!?

BTW: I just did not note a significant improvement for the new
relationship diagrams. I had prefered some real kind of spreadsheet
improvement, such als multiline copy/paste or drag'n'paste.

At the moment it's impossible to copy a single record text part
manually, since fonts and cursor position are completely messed up
(pre-installed Geneva font, MacOS 10.3.3).

Kind regards
Martin

Reply to this Message

Howard Schlossberg - 30 Mar 2004 16:24 GMT

Sorry, Martin, but I'm not understanding what you're trying to do. Your
example of 6 behavior was true if you had a portal on the layout. If
you only had the related field without the portal than I'm pretty sure
it would only update the first related record. But I'm not sure what
you're trying in 7; 7 should work exactly the same as 6 in this regard.

> I just gave FMP7 a first try.
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> record a, field x: 1<cr>2 does not relate to every other 1 OR 2 any
> longer!?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howard Schlossberg (818) 883-2846
FM Pro Solutions Los Angeles, California
Associate Member, FileMaker Solutions Alliance

Reply to this Message

Martin Trautmann - 30 Mar 2004 17:45 GMT

> Sorry, Martin, but I'm not understanding what you're trying to do. Your
> example of 6 behavior was true if you had a portal on the layout. If
> you only had the related field without the portal than I'm pretty sure
> it would only update the first related record. But I'm not sure what
> you're trying in 7; 7 should work exactly the same as 6 in this regard.

Hi Howard,

I'll give it a next try this evening.

What I first wanted to do is

record    field
1    A <CR> A1
2    B
3    A <CR> A2
4    C
...

I did a find on duplicate records, field = !, returning e.g. 1 and 3.

I now wanted to merge records (taking the serial number of the current
record and some calculations as further input for the replace)
where I expected as a result

1    A <CR> A1 <CR> A2
3    A <CR> A2 <CR> A1

... however, I ended up with
1    A <CR> A1 <CR> A2
3    A <CR> A2

So for any reason the relationship did not work any longer 1->3 via A
and 3->1 via A. I'll have to check further what has been modified in
here.

Kind regards
Martin

Reply to this Message

Martin Trautmann - 30 Mar 2004 21:23 GMT

The first attempt was:

Replace Field Contents[a, if(self::serial = serial, a, a & "<cr>" & a]

self is a relation from field a to field a within the same table (I
already hate the ER-diagram which has to create yet another table for
itself).

The next attempt was even more weird: I placed the related field self::a
on the same layout.

Then I did a

Replace Field Contents[self::a, ${testfile}::a & "<CR>"& ${self]::a]

This task runs for ever on a testfile with five records.

I may send you a sample file for evaluation.

Kind regards
Martin

Reply to this Message