Which suggests that drinking while developing may not be such a bad idea.
John Weinshel Datagrace Vashon Island, WA (206) 463-1634 Member, FileMaker Business Alliance Certified For FileMaker 10 -----Original Message----- From: FileMaker Pro Discussions [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Kilcoyne Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 12:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Relationship Issue Geoff, Steve, Flora, and John and anyone else that even considered my conundrum: First of all thanks a bunch! Second Steve you were right, I did not have all the fields from the same TO, but it took Geoff to point that out to me. He very generously review my tables and layout. I thought only the match field was required to be from the same TO as the Portal. Now I have the relationship correct and the portal fields correct and it works. Thanks again to all, Peter On Oct 9, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Geoff Graham wrote: > Took me a while to get to it... > > If I've got the right layout, your problem was that all the fields > in the Mail portal were based on the Parts TO, I'm sure from > copying and duplicating. I changed them all to pull from Mail > instead of Parts and it appears to work. I had to make up values > for the records to test with; I'll have to assume that your keys > are in order. > > but having the fields drawing from a different TO than the portal > would have caused the symptoms you described. > > hope I've helped, > > Geoff > > <PartsAndMail.zip> > > > On Oct 9, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Peter Kilcoyne wrote: > >> sorry forgot. >> >> PK >> inkspot >> On Oct 9, 2009, at 10:45 AM, Geoff Graham wrote: >> >>> Peter, >>> >>> It's wanting a user/password... >>> >>> Geoff >>> >>> >>> On Oct 9, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Peter Kilcoyne wrote: >>> >>>> Geoff: >>>> >>>> I appreciate your offer. I have attached clones with out records >>>> for the two databases in question. There are other databases >>>> that will be missing but they shouldn't effect this portal >>>> issue. I did try duplicating a portal that works perfectly and >>>> added the Mail =mail_job fields without success. That is what >>>> troubles me, one portal relationship that works correctly; >>>> duplicating it exactly and the dupe not working. >>>> >>>> Anyway I appreciate your comments. >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> <Parts Clone.fp7><MarComProjects Clone.fp7> >>>> On Oct 9, 2009, at 9:23 AM, Geoff Graham wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well, I'm not really seeing it. I'd love to take a look though >>>>> if you want to send me something. >>>>> >>>>> Your key field; Mail, being on the left hand side of your >>>>> relationship looking from your parent layout, wouldn't >>>>> necessarily have to be indexed; but the foreign key; Mail_job, >>>>> would definitely have to be for a relationship to work that >>>>> uses it. >>>>> >>>>> Geoff >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 8, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Peter Kilcoyne wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Geoff, Steve, and John: >>>>>> >>>>>> In my original database relationship Table_Jobspecs >>>>>> (MarComProjects) is related to Parts via ProjNum=ProjNum_job >>>>>> AND Constant=Constant_Job. I duplicated the same relationship >>>>>> and swapped Constant and Constant_job with Mail and Mail_job >>>>>> naively thinking this would work and changed the name (since >>>>>> you can't have two named the same) to Mail. This maybe where I >>>>>> went wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> Comments? >>>>>> >>>>>> Also if I un-index the fields Mail and Mail_job nothing shows up. >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter >>>>>> On Oct 8, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Geoff Graham wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 7, 2009, at 4:51 PM, Steve Cassidy wrote: >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But then I've now had a further glass of wine. I could be >>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One more glass Steve and you may attain true clarity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The line from the starting table occurrence (the layout) to >>>>>>> the destination table occurrence (portal content) is not what >>>>>>> your portal wants it to be. Now if you're sure the portal is >>>>>>> set right, that leaves your relationship graph. It's one of >>>>>>> the two right? You ruled out calculations evaluating from the >>>>>>> wrong context. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd start troubleshooting by placing another (temporary) >>>>>>> table occurrence in the graph that is what I think it should >>>>>>> be, then bring a related field into an unused area of the >>>>>>> parent's layout. I'd expect to see the first related child >>>>>>> record's data. Then a simple 6 line portal over that. A >>>>>>> serial field or some other identifiable data from the related >>>>>>> records would be my choice. Kind of a take it from the top >>>>>>> approach. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've certainly fought this one before. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Geoff >>>>> >>>> >>> >
