I'm having a little trouble understanding the limits of table occurrences in regard to layout context, and want to introduce a simplified example of my solution to see it someone can help me out.
- I have a parent table A and child tables, B, C, D, E, F, and G.
- On my relationship graph, table occurrences B, C, D, E, F, and G are all linked to table occurrence A appropriately.
- I have a Layout A that is based on table occurrence A.
- Layout A has a slide control and each panel displays related data for each child table.
- Now I'd like to add another child table H to my solution, but the relationship graph has visually become kind of a mess with all the lines from table occurrence A to its child tables. To make a clean start and keep the relationship graph more tidy, it seems like I should be able to create a new table occurrence A2 based on table A and then link that to the new table H. However, when I then try to add a portal to child table H to my layout A, the child table H is listed as an unrelated table.
I'm guessing this has something to do with layout A being based on table occurrence A and not based on table occurrence A2, but I am not sure if that is right. Can someone tell me why table H is showing as unrelated, and is there any way to fix this?