![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
| |||
| |||
|
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hi, Anybody in the mood to help a lurker/noob? I am migrating a FMP6 database to FMP8.5. I did not develop the original solution, and I've come across something which concerns me, but which I cannot think of an easy way to correct. This solution manages event information with several related dates (like an opening and a closing date, various deadline dates, etc.) Not every event uses every type of date, so some date fields are empty for some events. Whoever designed the database in the first place apparently came across a problem where, if you sorted a list view by date, then all the *empty* date records would show up first. (It's somewhat important that the list sort from earliest to most recent date, not vice-versa.) The way he solved this concerns me. As best as I can tell, he created a custom value list with *thousands* of entries, starting with 1/1/2000 and ending with 12/31/2007... and he sorts against *that* monstrous value list. This doesn't seem a smart way to do this, and it will stop working in 2008 unless I paste in a thousand more dates or so. No doubt there's a better way to do this. Suggestions? Thanks, -Rob Steward |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hi, Anybody in the mood to help a lurker/noob? I am migrating a FMP6 database to FMP8.5. I did not develop the original solution, and I've come across something which concerns me, but which I cannot think of an easy way to correct. This solution manages event information with several related dates (like an opening and a closing date, various deadline dates, etc.) Not every event uses every type of date, so some date fields are empty for some events. Whoever designed the database in the first place apparently came across a problem where, if you sorted a list view by date, then all the *empty* date records would show up first. (It's somewhat important that the list sort from earliest to most recent date, not vice-versa.) The way he solved this concerns me. As best as I can tell, he created a custom value list with *thousands* of entries, starting with 1/1/2000 and ending with 12/31/2007... and he sorts against *that* monstrous value list. This doesn't seem a smart way to do this, and it will stop working in 2008 unless I paste in a thousand more dates or so. No doubt there's a better way to do this. Suggestions? Thanks, -Rob Steward |
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
The way he solved this concerns me. As best as I can tell, he created a custom value list with *thousands* of entries, starting with 1/1/2000 and ending with 12/31/2007... and he sorts against *that* monstrous value list. This doesn't seem a smart way to do this, and it will stop working in 2008 unless I paste in a thousand more dates or so. No doubt there's a better way to do this. Suggestions? |
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
The way he solved this concerns me. As best as I can tell, he created a custom value list with *thousands* of entries, starting with 1/1/2000 and ending with 12/31/2007... and he sorts against *that* monstrous value list. This doesn't seem a smart way to do this, and it will stop working in 2008 unless I paste in a thousand more dates or so. No doubt there's a better way to do this. Suggestions? Thanks guys. I should have thought of sorting a non-displaying field, but I think I'd been staring at this project for far too long today. (I'm in the early stages of just getting my mind around the messy state this thing is in, so it's *lots* of effort for very little gain.) Thanks again! -Rob Steward |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |