TeamDesk Knowledge Base & Support

Home

FAQ

Forum

Idea Exchange

Ask a Question

My Stuff

Help

Match conditions between 2 multi-ref tables / dependent drop downs

Hello wise ones. I could really use some assistance ;-)

Im awaiting a response from TeamDesk support but in the meantime..

I have a scenario where I have a table with 2 multi-ref columns and I want a dependency between them.

I looked at the 'dependent dropdown' example at https://www.teamdesk.net/examples but it goes beyond that as that uses only single refs.

Suppose in the address/state/city example database you could add first multiple States to a record and then after select multiple cities, but only those cities linked to the states you had previously selected.

I have tried different things using ‘contains’ in the match conditions but can’t get anything to work.

Can anyone please advise ?

ID
1384

Category
TeamDesk

Author

Nick Ashcroft

Date Created
10/13/2020 3:58:27 AM

Date Updated
10/13/2020 7:08:17 AM

Comments

	basenine 10/13/2020 4:17:13 AM Try Any() or All() instead of contains.
	basenine 10/13/2020 4:17:27 AM Most likely Any()
	Nick Ashcroft 10/13/2020 4:21:46 AM thanks basenine - however you cant use formulas in match conditions - choice is only those in the 'condition' dropdown such as =, <>, >, Contains etc What would be great is if in the record picker filter you could reference values from the parent record but this is not possible.
	basenine 10/13/2020 4:31:38 AM Maybe try creating a dummy field that concatenates the choices selected, then use the match conditions from there. You can use formulas in record picker. There might be something in there you could play with.
	basenine 10/13/2020 4:33:37 AM Then I just reread your last paragraph 😀
	basenine 10/13/2020 4:34:37 AM I’ve never had success with the contains in match conditions. Not once!
	basenine 10/13/2020 5:22:37 AM With multi references, they’re not actually assigned to the record until the record is saved. So even when you check a heap of states, you’d need to save the record first, for them to stick
	Nick Ashcroft 10/13/2020 5:48:02 AM yes - Im getting that now. Best thing i can think is to add a 'dummy' single ref 'State' to be used as a filter for the 'child' multi-ref City and then remove the dummy value on saving. Taking the state/city example (both multi-ref), I add a 'single ref' to State as well as the multi-ref State. The 'city' multi-ref can be filtered based on the single ref 'state' filter using a 'Record Picker Match Conditions' condition. The user can consider this like a 'state filter' to limit the list of cities when making their selection to reduce the risk of choosing a wrong city. However, it doesnt actually prevent disallowed combinations of multipe states and multiple cities. TeamDesk support have also indicated a dependency between 2 multi-refs is sadly not possible. However, they gave a good tip to use a validation rule to block wrong combinations being added (using some lookups and formula eg 'Contains([Address_states],[City State])=False' but its a bit clunky because it doesnt tell you what the offending combination is - just a blocking error. thanks for the feedback !
	basenine 10/13/2020 6:14:00 AM Instead of the single reference, could you do a standard text field set to checkboxes, and fill the selection with the states?
	Nick Ashcroft 10/13/2020 7:08:17 AM hi basenine my use case is not actually States, Cities and Addresses - I just use that for the purpose of this forum as something people can relate to. In my use case both lists will be pretty long and dynamic according to the user so I prefer not to work with a prefilled list of options.

Feedback

Back to Search Results