 | Anatoliy Zachynskiy 8/4/2008 12:07:07 PM Sometimes I need different record picker views by different user role.
Or to link such record picker views to forms or to RELATIONs ?
|
 | Matthew Porter 4/20/2009 6:05:40 PM At present, fields that display the result of a record picker show ALL of the fields configured for display in the list.
For example, if I have a "Product" record picker, and display the SKU, Description and Price, these three fields are returned to the detail field as "SKU - Description - Price"
It would be good to have the ability to customise the record picker on each form so that I can choose which fields from the record are displayed and/or a formula for the detail.
Simply adding a "Record Picker Detail Display" **option to each relevant form field** with the options "Use Default", "Custom Fields", "Formula" would be helpful. Then, I could decide for each form which fields to display.
As a further update to this, having the ability to have multiple record pickers would be good. Sometimes, you need to display different criteria or different form fields depending on the situation in more complex applications.
|
 | Liquid Rapid 8/7/2010 4:10:01 AM Agreed - This would be *very* useful for me. There are some things I just haven't been able to do, without this functionality.
|
 | Rick Cogley 8/7/2010 4:34:35 AM I agree it would give greater flexibility to be able to link a record picker view to multiple relations, forms, or roles.
|
| Rick Cogley 8/7/2010 4:37:45 AM We would very much like the ability to have multiple record pickers, to flexibly assign them to forms or relations. The current situation without this, is limiting what can be done. With it, it will open up a bunch of new doors, so I hope Foresoft will consider this.
|
| Liquid Rapid 9/10/2010 8:58:35 PM I absolutely agree with this. I would use this extensively in several applications.
|
 | Desmond Beatty 2/2/2011 11:46:55 AM I also seek the ability to apply record picker functionality to lists of users. I do not want users to see ALL other users in a picklist. I seek to control through record picker, which users show up for a given user. The flexibility requested here would be essential here.
|
 | Jeff Zortman 4/29/2011 4:11:31 PM This would really help me on the application I'm working on.
|
| Desmond Beatty 5/28/2011 11:34:32 PM I'm with Mathew on this one. I would also want to assign them to "Role"
|
 | Gii Systems 5/30/2011 12:20:42 AM It would also be helpful if we could set this for the 'Users' table as well, by role.
I.e. if you have a dropdown to select a User, I do not always want to display all the users and it is cumbersome to update a set list.
Being able to set a custom record picker with this functionality to filter by role for a role will assist a lot.
|
| Liquid Rapid 6/8/2011 9:43:00 PM I agree with the role idea - assigning different record pickers to different roles would be useful. You can actually achieve this today with some formula work on the record picker filter.
I do it with a VUA Pick column - a single Formula Checkbox column. VUA stands for "Viewing User has this Access". I create a set of Formula Checkbox columns on the table, one for each role I want to check.
VU Adminstrator
VU Standard Access
VU Read Only
..
Then simply write a formula in VUA Pick which checks the viewing user's role and decides whether they have access to each record. You can also include checks on the state of the record (ie, only include data which is 5 days old or newer). Then throw that VUA Pick column into the record picker filter formula. Now you have a central place where you can write a formula which controls what data is shown in the record picker, based on the user's role and/or the data on the record. You can get pretty good control over it, on account of the rich formula language.
You can do a similar thing to display different columns in the pick list depending on the user's role. If you create a single Formula Text column - I call it Pick Name - which constructs a different string depending on the values in the "VU Role" columns above, you can configure the record picker to display that single column. Then you have a single central place where you have pretty good control over which data is displayed in the pick list, again based on the user's role and/or the data on the record.
|
| Liquid Rapid 6/8/2011 9:46:14 PM >It would also be helpful if we could set this for the 'Users' table as well, by role.
I second this idea, too. I've wanted to do this a few times, but there's just no way to do it that I see.
|
 | Arnold Hakobyan 8/23/2011 1:03:28 PM I need it.
|
| Arnold Hakobyan 8/24/2011 1:44:02 AM is there any way to circumvent?
|
| Liquid Rapid 9/5/2011 3:20:11 PM Arnold - In some particular cases, you can use Match Conditions to simulate this. If all you want to do is allow picking from a different set of records per relation, Match Conditions can work for that. The record picker will still show the same columns for every relation.
You can think of the record picker configuration as the "global" configuration for all relations to the table. So, the record picker for all relations will show the columns you configure here. And the filter you configure here will apply to all relations. You can use this "global" filter to, for example, filter out "inactive" or "invalid" data that should never be picked anywhere.
To filter the record picker further for each particular relation, you can use Match Conditions in the relation configuration. The easiest way is to create a Formula Checkbox column on the target table (the table where you configured the record picker view) for each different set of data. You'll end up with one checkbox per set of data (ie, Data Set A, Data Set B, ...). Then, on each table that links to the target table, you create a Formula Checkbox column with the sole value 'true' (no quotes). I usually call this "Match - true". It's used purely for matching in a match condition. Then open each relation, and create the Match Condition. If the first relation is for Data Set A, you create the match condition [Match - true] = [Data Set A]. That tells TeamDesk that only the data in Data Set A is valid for the relation; TeamDesk then displays only the data in that data set in that record picker.
For the next relation you create the match condition [Match - true] = [Data Set B], and it will show a different set of data from the same table.
One thing to note is that Match Conditions actually invalidate links to data that doesn't match. ie, even if you manually linked something from the first relation to data from Data Set B, TeamDesk would consider the link invalid. That affects Lookup columns and Summary columns that you pull over the link - they'll all be null. So if you ever need to select, for example, Data Set B data on the first relation - this approach won't work. If your relations are strictly segregated, so that you only ever need to select data from a single data set on each relation, then this works nicely.
Hope that helps,
Nathan
|
 | Kirill Bondar 11/22/2011 5:38:36 AM Merged with:
254 - Customise record picker results
221 - Some record picker views
|
| Kirill Bondar 11/22/2011 6:02:54 PM It turns out we are very close to have this implemented by allowing to specify any table view as a record picker for "one" side of "one-to-many" relationships. This will effectively eliminate the need for match conditions with constant on "many" side. On the bad side, the record picker is used in two more places: to display form's heading in edit mode and to display record description in Recycle Bin. Latter can be perhaps solved by switching to use table's Name Column - as Recycle Bin is used rarely the effect of the change is minimal. As for form caption, it might be tempting to use the List() based formula to concatenate values from multiple columns, yet it does not solve the problem - while the view silently removes inaccessible columns the formula will fail as a whole. What may really help is Highlight prime columns idea - a bit underrated I would say :) |
 | Baret Kouyoumdjian 12/13/2011 4:11:28 AM So when can we see a different record picker for each Relation?
Baret
|
 | basenine 11/22/2012 7:01:42 PM It would be nice to be able to set a Match Condition based solely on the Data in a column from the Referring table rather than the current way where we need to create a "Flag" column with a default calculation in the Parent table..
At the moment for Example:
Two tables are related to one table...
Table A ---> Table B
Table C ---> Table B
I only want to choose some records from Table B in Table A and I want to choose different records from Table B in Table C
I therefore need to create a Column in Table A and Table C that Default Calculates to "XYZ" (in Table A) and "ABC" (in Table C)...Match Condition with relevant Column in Table B...
It would be so nice to be able to say:
Record Picker Match Condition in Table B: All Records that...
If(Contains([Column],"XYZ"))
I (We) use this a lot and the work around is frustrating :)
Kind regards - Brett
|
| basenine 11/22/2012 7:02:07 PM Unless of course I'm missing something ;)
|
 | Slava Shinderov 11/23/2012 12:44:59 AM Merged with:
581 - Record Picker Match Conditions on Referred Column
|
