This site has been archived. Please visit help.fulcrumapp.com for our new support documentation and contact information.

Record Links - Auto Populate Fields when 'Allow Multiple Records' turned on

srweal's Avatar

srweal

15 Dec, 2016 01:56 AM

Hi,

I'm wanting to use Selection Filter to limit the available Records in a Record Link question.

However, the field I want to filter based on is a multi-record field, and I am not able to 'Auto Populate' a text field with the multiple selected values.

My set up is:

1 App for Properties.
1 App for Species (with their presence on one or more Properties).
1 App for Monitoring Data (which chooses Property, then wants to only show relevant Species)

How can I achieve this? Seems like it should be possible, but the 'Auto Populate Fields' option does not let me write out the multiple property names/IDs into a field that I could then do a 'Contains' comparison on.

Btw, I'm aware that a Contains comparison is not ideal, as this won't necessarily give me the matching records I'm after (e.g. because a code like ID1234 contains ID12 in it).

Any tips/thoughts on how this can be done more effectively?

Thanks, Steve

  1. 1 Posted by phil on 15 Dec, 2016 02:31 AM

    phil's Avatar

    Just a question - what happens when someone doing the monitoring discovers a new species on the property?

    You could do all this in one app with repeatable sections.

    Cheers - Phil (user, not Fulcrum staff)

  2. 2 Posted by srweal on 15 Dec, 2016 02:34 AM

    srweal's Avatar

    They would just add the species via the Record Link / Add New button.

    Btw, it would be nice for that button to also pre-populate the Property
    option in the new Species record, but I don't know how I could make that
    happen.

    Steve

  3. 3 Posted by phil on 15 Dec, 2016 04:12 AM

    phil's Avatar

    OK I have the cascading choice lists worked out. Let me know the email address of your account and I will share the 3 apps with you.

  4. 4 Posted by srweal on 15 Dec, 2016 05:56 AM

    srweal's Avatar

    Thanks. Please share to [email blocked].

  5. 5 Posted by srweal on 16 Dec, 2016 12:23 AM

    srweal's Avatar

    Thanks for that example Phil.

    However, the example you've worked up only allows a Species to exist on a one Property, not multiple (which is the underlying problem).

    I'm hoping someone from the Fulcrum team can explain why it is not possible to output the values from 'multiple' selected records (in a Record Link) into another control (e.g. a text field)?

    If this can be done for a single 'record linked' field value, then outputting multiple 'record linked' field values should just be a matter of concatenating them with some agreed delimiter.

    Is there some other technical reason that stops this from working?

  6. 6 Posted by phil on 16 Dec, 2016 12:32 AM

    phil's Avatar

    No - you can add any species on any property (but only once per property). If you want to add multiple records of the same species on the same property then we will have an issue.

  7. 7 Posted by phil on 16 Dec, 2016 01:47 AM

    phil's Avatar

    I avoid the "allow multiple records' on Record Link fields for the very reasons you are facing. Likewise Multichoice fields. Always a nightmare when you come to the analysis.

  8. 8 Posted by srweal on 16 Dec, 2016 01:54 AM

    srweal's Avatar

    It seems to me like the solution you've presented just models the one-to-many relate between Species>Properties in a separate App, rather than using the built-in 'Allow Multiple Records' option on a Record Link to Properties.

    I can see how this works and how it addresses the problem, although it involves managing the Species/Property relationship in a separate App rather than from a simple Species App.

    When it comes time to fill out a Monitoring record, your solution builds the Record Link to the Species/Property record, not direct to a Species record. Again, i can see how that works and can ultimately give you the desired result (through a couple of table joins).

    My question to Fulcrum developers still stands though - can these multi-selections be output to another field for filtering purposes (via a CONTAINS/LIKE operator)?

  9. Support Staff 9 Posted by Alex Helms on 16 Dec, 2016 02:54 PM

    Alex Helms's Avatar

    Hello,

    The reason for not being able to auto-populate when allow multiple is enabled on a record link field is a combination of both technical and design reasoning. An example of this on the technical side is auto-populating a single choice field when there are multiple records selected. I understand that you are looking to populate a text field, which would work in theory. The above example is just one of many corners that would need to be handled gracefully, which comes to the design decision that supporting auto-populating when allow multiple is enabled would not be included. With that said, we are exploring greater support for the record link field with data events, where you could explicitly define what you would like to do, whether it be comma delimit all the values into a text field or only include certain values from select linked records. Leveraging data events for this instead of adding native support directly inside the record link field would be the most flexible option for our users.

    A workaround for this would be to place the record link inside a repeatable section. This would allow you to stay within the one to one requirement for the auto-populate feature and still associate multiple records with a single root level record. Then if you wanted to combine the values that are pulled into the field in the child records, you could use a calculation field that returns a sting with all of the values.

    "it would be nice for that button to also pre-populate the Property option in the new Species record, but I don't know how I could make that
    happen." - Thanks for the feedback on this. I will share this with the development team.

    Thanks,
    Alex

Keyboard shortcuts

Generic

? Show this help
ESC Blurs the current field

Comment Form

r Focus the comment reply box
^ + ↩ Submit the comment

You can use Command ⌘ instead of Control ^ on Mac