Hi Neil Browning:
Thanks for posting.
Are you currently running Bento 3 or Bento 4 on you computer?
When you use the option to import using “Bento data source,” the Macintosh operating system tries to launch the current Bento version and use its database file. If you have both Bento 3 and 4 still installed, the Bento data source import may not be able to open the correct Bento database to import from. Open a finder window and select your applications folder. Bento should normally only be listed once in this folder. If both Bento 3 and 4 are installed, you will want to remove Bento 3 by dragging it to the trash.
I have a few questions regarding the data you are importing from Bento.
Are you trying to transfer just one library, or all of your Bento libraries?
How many records and fields are in the tab delimited file you created?
Which fields are missing after you import into the FileMaker database?
When you go through the import process in FileMaker, you want try the following. Open your database and go under the file menu, select import records and then file. Navigate to your tab delimited file and select it for importing. You should now have the import field mapping window. In the top right will be a drop down box called target. For this import, click in the target dropdown and select “New Table.” In the bottom left corner is a box called “Don’t import first record (contains field names),” which you want to place a checkmark in. In the middle box, look under the source field column. Are any of the fields from Bento not listed, or shown but missing an arrow? Make sure each field has an arrow pointing from source fields to target fields. You can add arrows by clicking the space that is between the source and target field area. Click import, which will import the records and display an import summary. You should now have a brand new layout for the data that was in the tab delimited text file.
"I only get the first 80 or so."
I could be wrong but that sounds like you are looking at your data in table view which is limited to displaying about that many fields at one time. If so, Open Manage | Database | Fields and note the number and names of your fields there. You may find that all of the fields did indeed import.
Yes, the answer was removing old Bento 3 hidden in a sub-folder in the Applications folder. It then imported slightly better than the tab-delimited file, so that was good. Also, 'PhilModJunk' was right that the table view could not display all the fields - the rest were there when I looked via Manage > Database > Fields.
The next question is: can I convert what are now 'number' fields containing 1 or 0 back into the single checkboxes (checked for '1', unchecked for '0') that they used to be in Bento?
Check boxes are a format you can apply to fields in FileMaker layouts. You define a value list of just the value 1 and use it as the value list for the field's check box group.
OK, think I get that, thanks!
But now I've got a label with the proper field title, but also an odd looking '1' beside the checkbox itself. I can 'hide' this '1' by making the text white, but that's rather clumsy. Can the proper label be put in place of the 1, inextricably part of the checkbox itself, or must it be a separate item?
You'd need to update the data in the field to change it from 1 to the value 1 represents. Replace Field Contents with a calculation can do this as a single batch operation on all the records in your found set. Once you have modified the data, you can use a value list of the actual values instead of 1 and 0.
You can also hide the numbers by making the field too narrow to show the number instead of changing the text color.
OK, I can see how that would work, I think, to get me a 'proper' integral label. For now I'll try the simpler option of making the fields small and see if that suffices.
Many thanks for your time and help in this!
Some developers actually prefer a single value of 1 stored in a field of type number for such lone check boxes. It can make certain operations and calculations performed on this field a bit cleaner. I tend to lean towards storing the actual value, but don't really have a strong preference either way...