General information
Category:
Forms & Form designer
>>>>>>Hi Guys
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have this form for maintaining bus operator details.
>>>>>>Now one operator (company) may be owned by another operator (company).
>>>>>>So the Operator table appears twice in the DE - one with alias "OPERATOR1" as opposed to the default.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The subject Operator table has a foreign key to its owner (ie another operator rec - which, btw, I don't have as a cyclic reln. in the DD). Just for the purposes of this form I have that pointing at the operator ID of OPERATOR1 in the DE. SO on the form I have a listbox to the OPERATOR1 "version" of the table, so that the subject operator's rec can have its owner selected froom the listbox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now then, only trouble is the listbox is empty at runtime. Now I developed this a few years ago and I can't see that I let this flaw go in testing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Any ideas? BTW it definitely is the same table USEDd AGAIN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>'ppreciate it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Terry
>>>>>
>>>>>UPDATE on this:
>>>>>
>>>>>In debug watch window I have dbf() function and this confirms that when I select either OPERATOR (initselalias)or OPERATOR1 (the reUSEd operator table, used to supply the listbox) they are indeed the same table (same path) BUT a browse of OPERATOR1 is empty, as if it's a different empty table.
>>>>>
>>>>>Really flummoxed over this one!
>>>>PMFJI, Filter?
>>>
>>>Filter - what?
>>>
>>>There are no filters - just the whole table supposed to be oin the listbox, as any operator can become the owner of another.
>>
>>Are you sure that there is no filter on the OPERATOR1?
>
>No, as I just said, there are no filters in the form. In fact, the only code assoc. with the listbox is the .interactivechange, where I place its value in a textbox. There are several listboxes on the page, each serving as a look-up to assoc. param. tables, each acting and set up exactly the same. Just this one where the same table used again, under an alias.
>
>UPDATE: I do apologise Beth. Yes there is, but not in the code, in the .filter prop. I'd forgotten that an operator can only be considered to be a potential owner if it is a holding company, ie with its holding company flag set. As none had, none appeared in the list. I've just checked 3 of them and now, of course, there are 3 in the list.
>
>In my defence: I think this is one of the very few times, if any, that I've used the filter prop, and I did write this several years ago. So as it is, I just stumbled on this while perusing and having ignored your suggestion. But I'll award you stars anyway :-)
Thanks, Terry
I just stumbled across this while checking other things on the site. I got stars, I got stars < dances wildly about the floor > >:)
Glad I could help.
Beth
Previous
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only