Search results

In the past, I've tried to make the point that adding a web-based component to an Access solution is not the same as replacing the Access solution with a web-based solution. One of the many reasons Access has never been recreated for the Web is precisely that. You don't need to duplicate the...

10 years too late, I'm afraid. And, to be very blunt, a project that is quite unlikely to blossom due to lack of a coherent guiding plan and leader. I'm not being critical of anyone at all. To the contrary, I admire the ambition. What I'm suggesting is that Wayne Phillips' TwinBasic is the...

While I was being tongue in cheek, I'm pretty well convinced that PowerApps simply can't compete on an equal footing with Access. You note that I resorted to SQL Server Stored procedures to get the functionality needed to replicate Northwind Developer. There's a good reason for that. The basic...

Fixed it for you.

I feel the need to muddy the waters. It appears to be that Access DOES rely on the Display Name, rather than the internal name. SELECT * FROM tblAlbum WHERE AlbumID > 2 By the way, note the plethora of meta-data fields in the linked SP lists shown in the Access Relationship window.

I have used Chatty. I like Chatty. Chatty is not never wrong. But wrong less often than I am, probably. What Chatty has that I don't have is a great memory for things that happened 5 years ago.

The Northwind Developer template in Access handles inventory on a binary basis, which is similar to what you describe. You either ship 100% of the items on an order, or none. While this is probably not the predominant approach, it is valid. You can download the Northwind Developer template...

Sorry, I was wrong. It is shown in the PowerApps environment as "ID", even when it's display name is changed.

I have to disagree on the renaming. I think you really did rename that field. I think the "internal" name is probably something else. However, I don't know that for sure. I can check, but it'll take a while to ferret out an example to test.

I would very much like to see the results as well. Thanks.

Perhaps screenshots showing the problem would be helpful. Thank you.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. :rolleyes:

I think the whole Lookup field thing with value, or descriptive, fields being displayed rather than the actual Foreign Key value, makes for potential confusion. I wish SP lists had a better option. In PowerApps, there is some additional difficulty using Lookup fields, as you note, because of...

Thanks for adding to the SSMA GitHub for this issue. https://github.com/microsoft/SSMA/issues/20

While it's certainly true that you can enforce RI in a PA interface or an Access interface or in PowerBI, I think it makes more sense to employ the table level mechanism that positively does so-- i.e. Lookups between lists. I don't see it as a matter of entering or displaying data directly in...

This is what has been called a "frustrated outer join", a term I find amusing and apt. Change the join to a Left Outer Join, showing all records from tblConcernFormSubmissions and only matching records from tblPlaceConcALL. Add as a criteria: tblPlaceConcALL.ConcernID Is Null That will return...

Perhaps the problem is the reference to lookup fields in different contexts. In the Junction table called Issue_WorkArea, you have two foreign key fields: lkpWorkAreaID and lkpIssueID. Both lkpWorkAreaID and lkpIssueID need to be Lookup Fields in the SharePoint list/table. That is the way to...

I agree, yes. Once the tables are migrated, building the Access interface is largely the same except for the meta data fields added in SharePoint which you don't need to include in Access forms, etc. I just ignore them.

That would appear to be correct, yes. The Lookups in SharePoint should include only the respective Primary Key fields, with no additional value fields being needed. "I'm thinking of migrating from the lookup field to lists using sql and vba. Thoughts?" I'm not sure what this would entail. If...

The most basic question of all is this: "Given the design requirements specified for this database application, does it meet all of those requirements satisfactorily." Since we can't see those requirements and can't see the database application itself, it's impossible to evaluate it...