mike60smart
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 01:04
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2017
- Messages
- 2,241
Sorry but it seems to be a lot of work when all you need is a Combobox to choose a specific Transaction Type from a List
Plus nifty people like @MajP have created classes for Find As You Type for combos etc.
Find (Filter) as You Type Controls (Combobox, Listbox, Form)
Here is an Find/Filter as You Type (FAYT) class. This allows you to find/filter lists of comboboxes, listboxes, and continuous forms. The class helps create the capability with a single line of code to instantiate the class. You need to import the class module. Then instantiate a FAYT...www.access-programmers.co.uk
No Pat, I understand, it's just that nagging thing in my head because I know there's a much better way to do it. I use my extra work time to make improvements such as this to existing work db's. Probably will stick to MajP's solution from now on, I'm sure it's easier to troubleshoot. That said, I do really like the use of a Queryable Access table for the result in my solution, when using vba for the basic form functionality. However, I know this is not even nearly the fastest solution and therefore not the RAD solution. This database that I am working on is obviously not for my official work (except the training experience it gives me), and therefore I am a bit more picky about the precise functionality - of the final build. That said, since I am learning, I will do the quickest/easiest/simplest methods (what you guys recommend) first and then improve it the way I would like later. However, I reserve the right to bitch (a little) about Access LOLOK, you don't understand how they work so you are constantly fighting with them...
Not sure if you noticed in that FAYT example there are examples for combos, listboxes, and forms. In the form demo you can do an FAYT on any field you want (just have to add a field selector)Like you said, that's 'nifty.' I will try that after I get it working with combo boxes, after the otherwise final build. I am open to using comboboxes for the initial build(s).
Thanx @MajP! Much appreciated. I will have to figure out how to use that at a later date.
Yes, I did spend about 20 minutes looking at it, looked at the default form and one of the class modules. Tried the comboboxes. Nice to know you are still around should I have a great deal of difficulty understanding something. Again, Kudos @MajPNot sure if...
HiI didn't know: when you try to create a second relationship between two tables, and the dialog box pops up saying "do you want to" edit the original relationship, you can still ad another relationship. I previously just cancelled out of that, thinking that it was going to disallow one of the relationships. I just now made the second relationship work for the first time, FYI. But, a new box with a table popped up, with a "_1" suffix, but there was no new table in the tables list. I've seen this before in another database, but didn't understand where it was coming from (I thought it was a "ghost" table, unexplained to me). Here's what I have now (database attached, you may browse table fields):
View attachment 109093
Now I'm going to build an account type form, to generate proper account types (populate tblAcctTyp).
Yeah, I picked up on that, but not sure if you want me to do something with that info. Access did that automatically, so I'm assuming that's OK.Hi
All of the tables in your Relationship Diagram with the Suffix's are just the same table with an Alias of _1, _2 & _3
Which values are you going to be storing in tblXactn that are currently in tblAcctDirectory?Yeah, I picked up on that, but not sure if you want me to do something with that info. Access did that automatically, so I'm assuming that's OK.
None.Which values are you going to be storing in tblXactn that are currently in tblAcctDirectory?
Please understand: sometimes I just add a field (EDIT: that I delete on the final version) to make troubleshooting and sleuthing easier.I've skimmed and disregaded all the posts about forms and combo boxes and have just focused on the latest screenshot and database sample you posted (post #30). With that I see you have some real issues with your tables and any form talk is irrelevant at this point. Here's what I see with your table structure:
1. Circular relationship. tblXactn, tblBroker and tblAcctDirectory have a wrong relationship--I don't know enough about your data to know which one. You should only be able to trace 1 path between tables--I can trace 2 between tblBroker and tblXactn (directly and also via tblAcctDirectory). What you are saying is that an Xactn can have a broker, but it can also have an AcctDirectory that may be a different broker. Is that true? Can 2 different brokers be associated with an Xactn?
2. Storing duplicate data. tblAcctDirectory has an AcctActiveDate and an AcctActiveTimeStamp--what's the difference between these 2 fields? Could an AcctActiveDate ever be a different date than what is in AcctActiveTimeStamp? If not, then you only need AcctActiveTimeStamp. Same for ActInactive fields.
3. Storing calculated data. You shouldn't store data that can be calculated from other data in your database. In addition to those AcctActive/Inactive fields tblAcctDirectory also has a Yes/No AcctActive field. You don't need AcctActive because you can look at your Active/Inactive date fields and determine that.
And here's the biggie:
4. Using field names to store data. This is what I guessed about your data in my first post--you are using values as names. tblAcctType should not have a field named for each Acct Type but each account type should just be a value in a field. Same for tblXactnTyp and tblXactn.
Back to the car analogy. When a used car lot has a database of the cars it sold it has tblSales with a field for CarMake and in that CarMake field that put Honda, Toyota, Ford, Buick, etc. They do not link tblSales to tblCarMakes in which they have a bunch of fields named after every make they offer (a Honda Yes/No, a Toyota Yes/No, a Ford Yes/No, etc. etc.). They simply store the make in the sales table with the value. With your database you have chosen the second and wrong method.
A database isn't a spreadsheet--you don't just throw more categories across the top. A database should accomodate data vertically (with more rows) and not horizontally (with more columns). Suppose you get a new tblAcctTyp. In your system you must add a new field to the table, reconfigure your form to accomodate it, reconfigure any query and report as well. In a properly structured database (like the car analogy) you simply add that new value to the available options and nothing else needs to be done.