3 Replies Latest reply on Jan 14, 2013 8:39 AM by philmodjunk

    Duplicating records with new version

    jessicaemler

      Title

      Duplicating records with new version

      Post

           I recently made a post about duplicating records.

           I was able to use the script shown below to duplicate.

           Is there any way that i can duplicate this record, and keep the same project number, but with a different version? For example:

           Job number 1005

           then when i want to create a duplicate invoice with some minor changes: Job number 1005.1, 1005.a, or 1005v1

      Screen_shot_3.png

        • 1. Re: Duplicating records with new version
          philmodjunk

               If you add a version field, you can add this set field step after duplicating the invoice record:

               Set FIeld [Project::Version ; Project::Version + 1]

               Then you can use an auto-entered calculation on yet another new field to combine the job number and the version values into a single value if such is needed. (You can use layout text and merge fields to display this same result without any added field to combine the two.)

               __kp_Job_Number & "." & Version

          • 2. Re: Duplicating records with new version
            jessicaemler

                 Thank you!

                 also, recently i saw that you posted a link to the explainations on kp and kf field designations, etc.

                 Could you repost that?

                 Thanks again!

            • 3. Re: Duplicating records with new version
              philmodjunk

                   kp stands for "primary key"--the field that is defined to uniquely identify each record in the table where the field is defined. kf stands for "foreign key", this is the match field in a related table--often it matches to the primary key field of the table to which it is linked, but not always.

                   I think this is the link you wanted: Common Forum Relationship and Field Notations Explained

                   Please note that this is a link that was originally started as an easy way to help folks understand the notation I most often use when suggesting a particular set of relationships. I think the naming convention that I use in it is pretty decent, but it's far from the only set of such "conventions" you might use.