Comments for BillOnFileMaker http://www.billonfilemaker.com Insights, tips, techniques, resources and issues using FileMaker Pro. Tue, 20 Jul 2010 06:37:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Comment on Bug: Can’t reference go to layout via calculation if layout name is also name of a folder by Bill Doerrfeld http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=738&cpage=1#comment-208 Bill Doerrfeld Tue, 20 Jul 2010 06:37:54 +0000 http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=738#comment-208 Yeah FMP grabs the first matching named folder or layout, so, yes putting the actual layout you want ahead of a like named folder doesn't cause any problem. Yeah FMP grabs the first matching named folder or layout, so, yes putting the actual layout you want ahead of a like named folder doesn’t cause any problem.

]]> Comment on Provide script step to show/hide Formatting Bar by Tim Dietrich http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=675&cpage=1#comment-204 Tim Dietrich Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:39:25 +0000 http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=675#comment-204 I would also really like to be able to show and hide the formatting bar via a script step. This seems like an oversight... I would also really like to be able to show and hide the formatting bar via a script step. This seems like an oversight…

]]> Comment on Bug: Can’t reference go to layout via calculation if layout name is also name of a folder by Nicholas Orr http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=738&cpage=1#comment-199 Nicholas Orr Wed, 07 Jul 2010 01:11:29 +0000 http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=738#comment-199 Bill, Have you tested with different creation order and layout order? Since you posted this I realised I do the same thing in BaseElements 3, but I have the layout before the folder with the same name, and I've not noticed this issue. Cheers, Nick Bill,

Have you tested with different creation order and layout order? Since you posted this I realised I do the same thing in BaseElements 3, but I have the layout before the folder with the same name, and I’ve not noticed this issue.

Cheers,
Nick

]]> Comment on Quickly insert script steps with Keyboard Maestro macros by nils http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=237&cpage=1#comment-198 nils Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:43:39 +0000 http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=237#comment-198 Did someone manage to bring the 'click Button' action to work, for instance in the 'manage custom functions' dialog? Did someone manage to bring the ‘click Button’ action to work, for instance in the ‘manage custom functions’ dialog?

]]> Comment on Bug: Can’t reference go to layout via calculation if layout name is also name of a folder by Bill Doerrfeld http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=738&cpage=1#comment-197 Bill Doerrfeld Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:24:25 +0000 http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=738#comment-197 Tthe "backward compatibility" argument doesn't make sense as there's plenty of examples of new features which don't appear (either visually or logically) in prior verions which support the same file format. The fact that Layout Folders "interally" are stored at the same level as layouts themselves is just bad programming design. Further, the LayoutNames() function does NOT return Layout Folders. So, how could one make the argument they are in actuality layouts? For backward compatibility FMI could have simply flattened the folders and not shown anything rather than converting Layout Folders to actual layouts. I'm sure they did it this way as it was more convenient to program. Tthe “backward compatibility” argument doesn’t make sense as there’s plenty of examples of new features which don’t appear (either visually or logically) in prior verions which support the same file format. The fact that Layout Folders “interally” are stored at the same level as layouts themselves is just bad programming design. Further, the LayoutNames() function does NOT return Layout Folders. So, how could one make the argument they are in actuality layouts?

For backward compatibility FMI could have simply flattened the folders and not shown anything rather than converting Layout Folders to actual layouts. I’m sure they did it this way as it was more convenient to program.

]]> Comment on Bug: Can’t reference go to layout via calculation if layout name is also name of a folder by nils http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=738&cpage=1#comment-196 nils Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:54:24 +0000 http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=738#comment-196 Filemaker internally treats the groups as normal layouts for backward compatibility. This was also the case with script groups. Someone should tell filemaker to store an alternative name internally, like '--groupname'. This would avoid the problems with identical names. Filemaker internally treats the groups as normal layouts for backward compatibility. This was also the case with script groups. Someone should tell filemaker to store an alternative name internally, like ‘–groupname’. This would avoid the problems with identical names.

]]> Comment on Find any text across all of your scripts; for free by Bill Doerrfeld http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=726&cpage=1#comment-191 Bill Doerrfeld Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:53:46 +0000 http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=726#comment-191 The thing about Base Elements and similar products is that they can take a long time to parse the XML DDR in order to make your code searchable. That's why I emphasized quick and easy (not to mention "free") in this article and yes this technique as stated is specific to scripts. If you're in rapid development and changing scripts frequently, it's much faster to use this technique than to use Base Elements to find code within scripts. The thing about Base Elements and similar products is that they can take a long time to parse the XML DDR in order to make your code searchable. That’s why I emphasized quick and easy (not to mention “free”) in this article and yes this technique as stated is specific to scripts. If you’re in rapid development and changing scripts frequently, it’s much faster to use this technique than to use Base Elements to find code within scripts.

]]> Comment on Find any text across all of your scripts; for free by Daniel http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=726&cpage=1#comment-190 Daniel Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:48:13 +0000 http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=726#comment-190 A far better way is to use Base Elements by Goya Pty Ltd, I swear by this product. It takes your xml DDR report and turns it into a fully releational database letting you search for basically anything, not just scripts. A far better way is to use Base Elements by Goya Pty Ltd, I swear by this product. It takes your xml DDR report and turns it into a fully releational database letting you search for basically anything, not just scripts.

]]> Comment on Find any text across all of your scripts; for free by Bill Doerrfeld http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=726&cpage=1#comment-187 Bill Doerrfeld Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:59:33 +0000 http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=726#comment-187 Try CutePDF on Windows. Try CutePDF on Windows.

]]> Comment on Workaround to get Quick Find found set to return no records if no records are found by Bill Doerrfeld http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=709&cpage=1#comment-186 Bill Doerrfeld Sat, 19 Jun 2010 06:16:16 +0000 http://www.billonfilemaker.com/?p=709#comment-186 I just discovered this "workaround" isn't working as the $Error value isn't returned as expected. (I thought I had tested this part before.) Anyway, my new workaround is to check if find crtieria was supplied and to have a calc which always knows the total count of records and then compare the found count with the total record count and if they're the same the assumption is that actually NOTHING was found (remember Quick Find returns EVERYTHING if nothing is found). This workaround works for most situations but if search criteria is supplied which indeed correctly yields the ENTIRE found set, then the result is misleading. However, that scenario would seem farily rare and/or such generalized searches basically defeat the whole purpose of searching anyway. I just discovered this “workaround” isn’t working as the $Error value isn’t returned as expected. (I thought I had tested this part before.) Anyway, my new workaround is to check if find crtieria was supplied and to have a calc which always knows the total count of records and then compare the found count with the total record count and if they’re the same the assumption is that actually NOTHING was found (remember Quick Find returns EVERYTHING if nothing is found). This workaround works for most situations but if search criteria is supplied which indeed correctly yields the ENTIRE found set, then the result is misleading. However, that scenario would seem farily rare and/or such generalized searches basically defeat the whole purpose of searching anyway.

]]>