9 Replies Latest reply on May 12, 2017 1:15 PM by philmodjunk

    Is there a "tag" equivalent in field options?


      Wondering if there is a field option equivalent to a "tag" in Evernote. Meaning a field where you can assign one or more repeating values followed one after the other by a coma. The purpose would be twofold: to autofill every time you start typing and, also, to keep consistency across values entered. And then be able to group the values regardless of whether a value appears by itself or with other values. Screen Shot 2017-05-12 at 17.56.20.png

        • 1. Re: Is there a "tag" equivalent in field options?

          No such option exists.


          Can you explain a bit more about what you are trying to do with this field? that might enable someone to suggest either an alternative approach or a script triggered set up that produces what you want.


          From your description, I can't figure where these grape varietal names are sourced from.

          • 2. Re: Is there a "tag" equivalent in field options?

            Thanks, Phil.


            Simply want the field to identify them as individual values. Currently some fields have one, two or many grapes in each. So instead of the "Tempranillo, Graciano, Cariñena" of the current example, I would want the field to identify them  as "Tempranillo", Graciano" and "Cariñena". Although in this particular case, the three apply.


            Hope that clarifies it.

            • 3. Re: Is there a "tag" equivalent in field options?

              It sounds like you are looking for something like...


              A FileMaker field of type Text with a data entry Control Style of type Checkbox with a Value List defined to contain all of the available Grape values.


              If you look at the Text field with a Control Style as an Edit box, you will see that the resulting entry by the Checkbox control into this field will have each grape value on a separate line.  If you need to display that with commas, you can use Substitute(myField; "¶"; ",") in a calculated field used for display, but I expect that you'll be happy enough with just displaying the Checkbox field.



              2 of 2 people found this helpful
              • 4. Re: Is there a "tag" equivalent in field options?

                I was thinking in terms of a check box group as well, but your description doesn't really make sense.


                I don't see a functional difference between:


                "Tempranillo, Graciano, Cariñena"




                "Tempranillo", Graciano" and "Cariñena".


                Describe how this is different in terms of data entry.


                Now that I think more about this, do you want the user to start typing in


                Temp and it auto-completes to Tempranillo and not Tempranillo, Graciano, Cariñena?


                That's no impossible, but scripting it would be at least a minor challenge.

                • 5. Re: Is there a "tag" equivalent in field options?

                  and if you have a field with comma-separated, you can convert to 'checked' checkboxes by converting the comma-spaces to returns

                  Substitute ( Grape ; ", " ; Char(13) )

                  if you have other delimiters then you may need to test (& change) for those too.


                  1 of 1 people found this helpful
                  • 6. Re: Is there a "tag" equivalent in field options?

                    It's both data entry simplification and consistency across the data set. Pretty easy to mess up and not include a letter, special character, etc. And immediately the Evernote tag functionality came to mind. When tagging, you get the auto complete equivalent of Filemaker but for tag entered. And you separate the tags with a coma. That was my idea.

                    • 7. Re: Is there a "tag" equivalent in field options?

                      It's not a built in feature that you can just pick and use. You'd have to build your own.


                      It would be simpler to build a related table of records from which you then display the related values as a comma delimited list.


                      The data model would look like:




                      Selecting a "tag" (varietal in this example) for a given record (wine) would create a record in the join table (Wine_varietal) linking the record to a tag.

                      Substitute ( List ( Varietals::VarietalName ) ; ¶ ; ", " )

                      would then produce your comma delimited list.

                      • 8. Re: Is there a "tag" equivalent in field options?
                        Jason Wood

                        "Auto-complete using existing values" does work on return-separated lists. Auto-complete will work on each individual line ("value") and it will draw from all the existing values (on any line) in the field.


                        You could improve on this by using 2 fields. Create a value list based on existing data in your list field (again, values need to be return separated). The new field would be an "entry" field. Set it to use a drop-down list and turn on "auto-complete using value list". Now you have the option to select from existing values in the list or click again (to get rid of the pop-up) and use auto-complete. Put a button next to it to "add" and attach a script trigger to work on "return" or field exit.


                        You could add a 3rd calculated field to display as a comma separate list if you want. You don't have to display the return separated list.

                        • 9. Re: Is there a "tag" equivalent in field options?

                          It will work, but not quite as needed here.


                          It will pull in the first matching value--and pull in the entire list instead of just one Varietal name.