ContributionsMost RecentMost LikesSolutionsRe: Document Generation - Filename It sounds like you're trying to extract the filename to put in your email message. Is that correct? Re: Copy Records pipeline, records are being skipped Have you tried having AI setup the Pipeline to see what it does differently? Is there a "required" field in your destination table that is not present in your source-records that when "copied" fail to import? Can you post the YAML of the PL? Re: Exchange a SAML assertion for a Quickbase token I would strongly advise going to the Discord channel for help with this. Re: block admin console access without denying Only Realm Admins can get access to the Admin Console. To do that someone has to have (at minimum) support-level permissions assigned to their user under the Manage Account box. A role can be given permission to add people to an Application without having Realm Admin Console access. This is done by turning on the checkbox in the Role for "Manage users and share the app". Re: Weird Rollbacks? Submit a support ticket and make sure someone did not request a backup from support which could have overwritten data. They can also perhaps advise if there was some audit logging that might indicate that an upload had overwritten changed data too. Re: Help connecting Table to Table Relationships Ok, I think you might be overcomplicating your design. Your [related site] field in your Risks table can be passed down into your milestones table via the [related risk] relationship in milestones; so your "siteid# and any other lookup-information can easily be displayed and reported on from milestones. You state that the Site Risk Register is a join table housing all the Risks and Milestones relating to a site in a single table. But, by definition; every Risk having multiple milestones means that each Milestone is a "join" record of a Risk and Milestone for a Site. Therefore; if you display ALL the milestones for a single Site; you get all the Risks automatically as a groupable-value. You can then embed a Report Link field-type on your Sites table that lists all the Milestones and group that report by the Risk (parent). If your Site Risk Register is supposed to be a list of "all risks" and "all milestones"; then you can build that fourth table and have a Pipeline create the join-table records there for all of them; but I would question the purpose of this "Site Risk Register" as it relates to Sites and what you would do with that extra table? Re: Need help deciding between two db setups Between your two options; you would need option 2 because you need to assign multiple faculty members to a Thesis for reading. There's also a (better) 3rd option. Assigning child-records of Faculty to a Thesis will provide better reporting in the long term; particularly if your Thesis Faculty need to have fields they fill in regarding the Thesis (yes they've read it, yes they have comments or feedback, yes it needs review etc.). When you have multiple-persons who are responsible for entering data relating to a single-entry; storing all of that in a single record gets hard to report in a standard table-style report. Leveraging the power of the Quickbase relationship with summary fields and lookups; you can do reporting from both the Thesis, Thesis Faculty and Faculty tables! I recommend this one. Re: Formula for form fields Actually you could do either; since these are lookup fields. FORM RULE with HIDE/SHOW solution: Your rule will look like this: When [Table 3 Field 1] = "value 1" then show [table 3 field 1] hide [table 2 field 1] hide [table 2 field 2] This logic means that when the table 3 field 1 SHOULD be visible; then it will be and under all other conditions it will be hidden. Conversely by adding the hide table 2 field 1 and 2; you're saying that when table 3 field 1 SHOULD be visible, then the other 2 fields should not be visible. So when table 3 field 1 is not visible the other table 2 field 1 and 2 WILL be visible. FORMULA: If( [table 3 field 1] = "value 1", [table 3 field 1], [table 2 field 1] & " " & [table 2 field 2]) (this assumes your table 2 field 1 and 2 should be displayed "together" in a single field. Also, this formula will "persist" across the entire table which would include reports, forms, formulas and emails etc. So this might be a better solution that one simple form rule that only exists in that one state. Using this formula in this way you can turn off reporting for the 3 lookup fields and rely only on this one formula. Re: Dynamic form rule inconsistency- (display message on open) Chuck - I do not have an easy answer. Here's a Quickbase link for future reference: https://helpv2.quickbase.com/hc/en-us/articles/16148473308692-Troubleshooting-form-rules I am sure it has something to do with how sequentially Quickbase reads the Rules and how they are setup. Moving Rules around generally should resolve problems like this since they should all be independent of each other and non-conflicting. If they conflict only the highest-number one will work (ie. the lower down the list). Re: Dynamic form rule inconsistency- (display message on open) No, there's no "conversion" for legacy forms to move to new forms; you have to rebuild. Make sure your Rule is at the top is my next-best suggestion; I've had rules not working in the past and then by moving them; I see magic happen. Also submit a Support Ticket if moving the Rule does not work - verify this is a bug (or intended behavior).
GroupsMobile Qrew For your mobile based use cases, there's no better space to discuss Quickbase mobile than in the Mobile Qrew.12 PostsPipelines Qrew A Qrew dedicated to sharing all things Pipelines.29 PostsRealm Admin Qrew Where Realm Admins help other Realm Admins Realm Admin.30 PostsWomen's Qrew For builders who identify as women to connect and learn from each other.15 Posts
Mobile Qrew For your mobile based use cases, there's no better space to discuss Quickbase mobile than in the Mobile Qrew.12 Posts