ContributionsMost RecentMost LikesSolutionsRe: Application TokenThanks Mark!! Just a simple character missing makes all the difference!! I appreciate your quick response. ------------------------------ Andrew ------------------------------ Application TokenI have a button that allows me to input the date and username of the person using the button. In previous versions of the app, the "Require Application Tokens" was unchecked, however, for the added security that it provides, we are going to start using it. The issue I am having is that now when the button is clicked, it gives an API_Edit_Record error due to no associated app token. I have gone into the App Properties, Manage Application Token, and Created a New Application Token. Afterward, I edited the button's code and added the following to the end: & "apptoken=xxxxxxxxxxxx", with xxxxxxxxxx being the actual token id. But I still get the same error. I have a few other buttons I need to do this to, so I would like to get it correct. The full button code is: URLRoot() & "db/" & Dbid() & "?act=API_EDITRecord&rid=" & [Assignment_ID_#] & "&_fid_23=" & Now() & "&_fid_24=" & UserToName(User(), "FF") & "&_fid_34=" & "1" & "apptoken=TokenCodeHere" & "&disprec=1" What am I missing? Do I perhaps have the apptoken line in an incorrect sequence? Should it be directly after the 2nd line? Any thoughts/input is appreciated. Thank you!! ------------------------------ Andrew ------------------------------ Child Table Fields - Is it an issue?I came across a strange issue I am not sure how to correct or even if it needs correction. I have two tables: Work Orders Contacts I have multiple relationships (x8) setup between the Work Orders & Contacts table. Contacts < Work Orders In each relationship, I have the same 4 fields in the Child Table. Each field starts as: Related Contact# - Contact ABCXYZ. Example: Related Contact7 - Contact Name In my first relationship, the fields were labeled as: Related Contact - Contact Name I had to remove the 4 fields from the first Relationship to test something, and then re-add them. However, upon re-adding them, they no longer have the "Related Contact - " in the field names. Now they only show as: Contact Name Contact Type etc. I have tried to remove them and re-add them, but no matter what, they always show up without the "Related Contact". I tested it with the other relationships, and those show as "Related Contact# - " in the field name. Is there an issue with the field names lacking the "Related Contact - " in the first relationship? How do I get it back? Do I need to be concerned? Thanks for you help! P.S. I manually changed the names of the fields to include the "Related Contact - " ------------------------------ Andrew ------------------------------SolvedRe: Updating App - Suggestions on table/form design best practice?Hahahah, great advice. Thanks Mark! ------------------------------ Andrew ------------------------------ Re: Updating App - Suggestions on table/form design best practice?Mark, thanks for the response. Yes, there are 8 slots in the Work order, each one is identified as representing one of the 8 different contact types. I first select my client, then I can click the dropdown which represents the VP, and it will only show me contacts from that client that have a contact type of VP. The same goes for the other 7 contact types, only showing me those specific contacts that are of that type and for that client. As far as sending emails, I am not too concerned about that issue as the contacts themselves would not be receiving any emails. Although I do like the simplicity which the brute force way of doing it allots me ... any pros to doing a m:m vs. this brute force method? Thanks again! ------------------------------ Andrew ------------------------------ Updating App - Suggestions on table/form design best practice?I am updating an app I previously created and trying to implement some better "best practices". One of the areas I am focusing on is better use of intermediate tables, aka Many-to-Many. My previous app had a part of it set up as follows: Tables Work Orders Clients Contacts Relationships Clients < Contacts Clients < Work Orders Contacts < Work Orders (x8) In my contacts table, there are several different types of contacts, e.g. VP, AVP, Supervisor, Manager, Specialist, etc. In the main Work Orders form, I have 8 drop downs, each stemming from one of the 8 Contacts<Work Orders relationships, and each representing one of the different contact types. Each dropdown is conditionally reliant upon the client selected in the Work Orders form. I was curious if there was a better way to do this, perhaps using a M:M relationship, maybe a table between Contacts and Work Orders, .... however thinking through this, I would still need to have 8 dropdowns, one for each contact type .... would it really add any benefit using a M:M table in that scenario, or should I leave it as I previously had it ???? Thanks for your input and suggestions ... I appreciate them ... ------------------------------ Andrew ------------------------------ Re: Closing the field spaceIn my prior app, I do have some fields above the "TYPE" field that are hidden until the record is created. But everything else is the same as far as the layout. Here is a screenshot of my updated app I am having the issue with. As you can see, there isn't anything between the various fields. Here is a screenshot of my prior app that is set up visually the way I like it. I don't have the additional fields in my updated app because I haven't created those relationships just yet. Could that be the issue? ------------------------------ Andrew ------------------------------ Closing the field spaceI have an app where the space between fields is closed, meaning there is not any large amounts of space between them. Example: However, in making a similar app with similar fields, I cannot seem to remove the extra space between the fields. Example (I have encircled in red the extra space): I cannot figure out how I did it before and why I cannot do it now. Also, the Rich Text box is not expanding to fit below the three upper fields. What am I missing? I feel like it is something super obvious but I can not place my finger on it ... ------------------------------ Andrew ------------------------------ Re: Setting up NotesBlake, Just wanted to say thanks for your help on this one! I appreciate it. ------------------------------ Andrew ------------------------------ Re: Setting up NotesWhat I ended up doing is the following: In the Notes Table, the Related NTS field, I enabled the Conditional Values checkbox. Here is what I set: I changed the NTS Default Record Picker to the following: In the Notes form, I inserted the following field: NTS - Note Subjects_Subject, and set it to use the Default Record Picker. Now in the Notes form, I have the Type field, which is the drop down menu and lists out all the Types, and the Subject field, which is a drop down menu and lists out all the Subjects. However, the Subjects is conditional to the Type selected. It also lists the text of the Subject instead of a numerical value. Not sure if what I did and how I set it up is best practice, which is what I am aiming for ... ------------------------------ Andrew ------------------------------