Tap Forms 5 helps you organize all kinds of things in one place - secure, searchable, and accessible on your iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch (Mac app sold separately). Now with Scripting and Siri Shortcuts support!Īccounts, recipes, expenses, inventory - life is full of things that we don’t want to forget or misplace. I’d suggest to create a simple test document where you work through the flow to see how it works and make sure it does what you need and models what you want to achieve.Tap Forms 5 is the digital filing cabinet for life’s scattered details. I think it’s a reasonable approach to the situation. I’d still be interested to know if you think I am attacking this structure in the right way, otherwise consider the thread closed and answered. Doing this natively will be a little easier than importing it later but obviously you can import it using the JOIN mechanism as well and change it later. I have a video that might help with leveraging link to form fields. It does add a layer of indirection to the system that you have to navigate through but it will permit you to model this many to many relationship with the extra data you want to track. It feels like you’re in a situation where I’d recommend a third form that handles the join details and adds any extra notes you might want to keep with it. You can also create script fields to combine values from multiple child records to make it a field you can pull directly in from a saved search as well. You can created searches per form and then use the links to navigate to other records where it makes sense. You could also import the attachments into Tap Forms as well but that might not make sense for you. If you’re on a single device, you can generally use the “web site” field to link to a location and Finder should be spawned to go to that location which should solve your link to folder use case. I can’t comment entirely on the import use case because it’s not something I’ve done a lot of but my understanding is that you should be able to import the attachments as well. The UI will treat it as M:M with the table rendering but if that bothers you then you could build a script later to relink records if you want to have that 1:M enforced link. If you only ever have one record with that key though it’s effectively a 1:M. JOIN obviously is ambiguous in that it’s really based on your own data if it’s 1:M or M:M. I’d appreciate your input on whether I am going about all this in the correct way. a project may consist of more than one garment type from one or more patterns, and also use one or more fabrics, but I could use the same pattern or fabric in another project.) I might want to keep a note on a specific join in this circumstance. I was planning to use a join type of relationship when I log projects which will need to have Many to many relationships with both garment types for a pattern, and fabric (i.e. Will the method you described support this too? Later, I want to be able to look at the garment type form and search through a particular garment type (for example all tops) then link back to the pattern for the one that I select and then open the files for the PDF or the instructions etc. When I input a pattern I want to be able to load pictures of the different garment types, and also link to a folder containing the various PDFs associated with it. a pattern might have a top, a dress and a skirt associated with it. This will be a one-to-many in the other direction, e.g. I will be importing another form later, with images of the garments for each pattern, but with the garment type associated with each picture. But this is a one-to-many relationship, is that a problem? (I usually think of a ‘join’ as supporting a many-to-many relationship).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |