This is not a good structure. Instead of repeating fields, use a third table to record the performances.
Thank you. I did that and it will work. However, I'm wondering exactly what you had in mind? The reason I ask is because I made a new table as you suggested, with an entry layout for it. Before using it, it made sense to me. But once I started to enter the data, something felt awkward:
I make new record. I enter musician #1 for song #1 and the details.
I make a new record. I enter musician #2 for song #1 and the details.
I make a new record. I enter musician #3 for song #1...
Doing it this way, there will be a lot of individual records for the same song just so that musicians can show up together in a portal. This is why I think you may have had something else in mind... maybe not using a separate layout? I feel like there's an solution I am missing but I can't think of it.
Unfortunately repeated fields have limitations and can mess up the data, particularly for lengthy lists. The thing I liked about the repeated fields was that on one song record, 5 musicians could be entered and listed as having performed on that one song; it was like writing them down underneath each other on note paper. Is there a method that can achieve the simplicity of this but do it the correct way to which you refer? Thanks.
it was like writing them down underneath each other on note paper. Is there a method that can achieve the simplicity of this but do it the correct way to which you refer?
Sure: place a portal to the join table on the Songs layout, and allow the relationship to automatically create join records.
Thank you. I'm afraid I need pointed in the right direction here. I read up on join tables and am thinking of this much like line items between Invoices and Product; at least I think it is.
I made a table called Musician Schedule (with no layout of its own), as the join table (bridge between Musicians and Songs). The table occurances look like this in Relationships:
Musicians - Musician Schedule - Songs.
Musician ID is the field that links from Musicians to Musician Schedule to Songs. I allowed "creation of records" in the Musician Schedule side.
In the portal, the fields are from "Musician Schedule", and I placed this portal in a second tab on the "Songs" layout. However, when I go into browse mode, there are no fields in which I could enter anything, so obviously this has not been done correctly.
EDIT: I've since tried using the fields from a different source, etc. but still in Browse mode, the portal does not appear. When I move the fields out of the portal, they do appear. Maybe this info further identifies my problem?
I don't know - based on your description, it should work. Perhaps you should look at the demo posted here:
and compare it with your file.
Note: the join table should have at least one layout - otherwise you won't be able to address it in a script, or even inspect the join records directly.
EDIT: I had to go back to a previously saved backup, which portals are now working. I don't know what was wrong with the other one but it was easier to continue on with a backup than troubleshoot.
I am using the portal on the Songs layout, and when entering info in the portal, it does create the record in "Musician schedule" table. However, by the time I got to the third song, I noticed that at that point, when I entered the musician for that song's record, it duplicated that musician's info automatically in the previous song record. If that musician had not been listed in the previous Song record, it added him to it; and if he was listed, it changed what had already been entered for him there. If I go back to the previous record to correct that info, it then takes that info and puts it in the current record.
I had moved away from using repeated fields to avoid the very thing that this is doing now!
Having this work properly is the last thing that needs to be done on this file.
Sorry, I haven't seen this until now. However, I am afraid I can only repeat what I said earlier: compare your file to the demo.