Sign up on the Revelation Software website to have access to the most current content, and to be able to ask questions and get answers from the Revelation community

Edit line validation on the fly (OpenInsight Specific)

At 20 NOV 2001 06:45:02AM tony hensby wrote:

I have an edit control which will have 2 type of input either a time in the format 13:00 or a session ID in the format ABCD.

Can I change the valid property on the fly from 'MT' when field is time type to 4A, when the field is session ID type.

suggestion welcome


At 20 NOV 2001 07:48AM Oystein Reigem wrote:

Tony,

(0)

I don't know if it can be done, and foresee some problems.

(1)

One solution would be for youto change your mind and have two different fields X and Y, and perhaps an additional field Z - a logical one - that knows which of the former two is used.

In you form have a checkbox or pair of radio buttons for Z, preceeding the controls for X and Y. Have the controls for both X and Y inactive. Then when Z is filled in (on its CLICK and READ handlers), check its value and set the relevant control of the X-Y pair active, and the other one inactive.

You can still have one field in reports, and other places where you present your data. Use a symbolic for those purposes.

(2)

A different alternative would be to write your own UDC for the field - a function that does the necessary validation and conversion. It's a bit different from how it's done in Arev. But people (and postings) on the lists can help you.

In case - how do you want your time data stored? Like displayed? Or as internal time values?

- Oystein -


At 20 NOV 2001 07:54AM [url=http://www.sprezzatura.com" onMouseOver=window.status=Click here to visit our web site?';return(true)]The Sprezzatura Group[/url] wrote:

You should be able to set the CONV and VALID properties - failing that you can amend the Window common (see SENL passim) on the fly. We did this for AmSys a few years back.

The Sprezzatura Group

World Leaders in all things RevSoft


At 20 NOV 2001 07:59AM Oystein Reigem wrote:

What if he wants to use the field in a report?

- Oystein -


At 20 NOV 2001 09:07AM tony hensby wrote:

thanks for responses.

I have decided on a variation of Oystein's suggestion

use two fields and make appropriate one visible which has the revelant validation properties already set

many thanks

View this thread on the forum...